Assignment for 10/6

Project Topics are due 10/13. Email me your ideas.

Read:
Vannevar Bush: As we may think: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/194507/bush

Watch:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2a1_1221941168

Assignment:
Blog about why you think you were asked to read this article

OR

How has hypermedia helped us, hurt us

Copyright: Right or Wrong

Technology allows copyright infringement to happen a lot more and a lot faster. Napster for instance allowed people, including me, to download and share files in a matter of seconds. In fact, somebody would get mad if it took more than a minute to download. What's to protect anything you create? Laws yes, but people can get past them illegally clearly. Ever seen those pictures that have a words across them? It's probably the smartest way to do it to stop stealing.

Personally, I feel as if Fairey did not illegally take the photo since he claims he was in contact with campaign officials. A lot of people would also say that since the poster was so successful that claims weren't followed through to the fullest. So is that to say that if you steal and your successful enough with the right crowd is it not stealing? Possibly. Personally I believe that if you take a photo for a project, cite it. Its just like a quote for an essay, you have to cite it or fail.

Copyright infringement is definitely morally wrong, but still happens. A lot of people that steal another's idea isn't even published so its not a big deal. Even file sharing only takes out of the million dollar artist pockets. Serious stealing is happening through program sharing and such things as the Obama Hope poster. But program stealing is being prevented by CD's copyright protection and only being allowed to install once. Which further provokes users to go to Kazaa, Napster, Limewire, or any other program that allows file sharing.

Intellectual Propery: Here We Go Again

The digital world has greatly changed since it's initial creation and has also changed the way people live. People are able to send information over a great distance in a short amount of time and also post whatever they like. This information can vary between pictures to music and this is where the problem starts. Soon this information can't be controlled and people so a huge hole in the internet and were able to slip through it. Movies, TV shows and even video games were able to be collected from free anywhere. Peer to Peer sites appeared overnight and the government wasn't ready for this new change.

The intellectual property basically protects specific rights that an owner has for his property. This basically allows these users to protect their special "property" for ever if they keep on renewing their copyright. I completely understand that these people wouldn't want fakes being sold for profit by other people. But this can be seen as someone being proud of the original authors work or trying to get money in a cheap way. All of this boils down to different types of media and how they are stolen in the digital world. When someone finds an art piece they like they'll slap it on their desktop. But when someone finds a movie or music they like for free they'll take it right away. I feel that the art piece on the desktop is ok but stealing movies and music can get sticky. Ever since the bubble burst by Napster (ah the old days) the government has tried to strengthen it's grip on illegal transfers more websites seem to pop up.

I can't just protect the illegal downloaders (even though I'm one) because they are stealing someones own thoughts and ideas. This lose of hard work does make sense but the prices that are set do get out of hand. This people that steal are taking a product that they love and by litteray putting them in the poor house the intial product loses it's real meaning. Musicians can be seen as the true culprits by completely attacking the pirates (illegal downloaders) their own fans lose faith in them.

There is a need for regulation on the inernet but since it was founded on communications people won't take kindly to being held down. People who have been raised with the internet understand how much they can receive for free out of it and will probably never want to look back. There are some good ideas out there such as itunes or even hulu but everyone always likes more stuff and controlling that will be hard.

When does your work, become their work?

Yes, yes, i know this is not Shepard Fairey's actual Hope piece, but that is my point. Shepard Fairey received a lot of grief for his use of the Washington Post's (i think) photograph, but this work obviously resembles the original work far more then Fairey's work yet who has heard any commotion about this piece. ( This is hardly the only version either, I feel like because of the hype about this piece it has lead to even more adaptations then would have occurred naturally.)

Intellectual property rights and the concept of ownership in a digital world is diminishing at a rapid rate. While earlier examples, such as perhaps Andy Warhol using Campbell's Soup or Monroe's portrait, displayed the beginning attempts at "Fair Use" of others work; The internet and digital formats in general have tested the limits of Fair use.

Shepard Fairey has received some of the latest pressures brought on by those dead set on believing that their work is theirs. Before arguing if he is right in doing what he did though, I think it is first necessary to point out that it was not even the photographer of the picture who sued Fairey for property rights, but the newspaper that the photo was captured for. Considering that they had no creative "ownership" of the photograph, it seems odd to even think that they could feel they were cheated out of or imposed upon when Fairey decided to use this photograph in his work.

But obviously the real argument lies in Ownership of an original source, not who created it. Shepard Fairey, in my opinion, had every right to create and sell his interpretation of President Obama from the newspaper's photograph. Not only did he successfully bring his own creativity to the work, but I feel the subject matter plays an important role in this discussion. The argument revolves solely around the fact that he used this image as a reference for his work, but the image is of a political, public figure.

I hate to quote what I'm about to quote, but in the movie Ironman, one character says "You think just because you came up with an idea it makes it yours?" but i think his is very appropriate to this discussion. In today's digital world, the ownership of ideas is being tested every second. For clarification, I DO NOT agree with the quote and I do feel that artists are entitled to feel a sense of security in their productions. However I do think that many people lose site of the bigger picture, that creation is meant to inspire and not to be kept to yourself locked in a safe.

In my opinion, the greatest accomplishment for an artist would be to have their work sampled and used in another artists work, purely because that means that you have done something truly inspirational in all aspects of the word. The only issue I feel is appropriate to argue is recognition and accreditation of the original artist. If this is denied and they attempt to claim all credit for the origin of the work then that work HAS in fact been stolen.
Basically it boils down, in my opinion, to if the original author of a work is given credit for being the inspiration for a re-work. If credit is given then the re-work is completely in accordance with Fair Use and should be able to be used commercially. But if accreditation isn't given then this re-work has effectively stolen it's concept and tried to pass itself off as it's own work entirely.

(As a side note, ironically, Queen "Under Pressure" was just playing on my radio and all i could think about was back to a VH1 video of Vanilla Ice claiming that "Ice Ice Baby" was entirely original and his own work. This is a case where I would say the work was stolen, because recognition was not given where it was due.)

IP: Confuses Me

I can't settle on an opinion about this. The more I read, the more I don't know what side my opinion falls on. I guess my opinion is: It always all depends. Do I think Napster was breaking the law? Yes, I certainly do. Do I think that Shepard Fairey's Hope poster was an infringement of intellectual property? No, actually, I don't. It seems to me that he took a photograph and turned it into a new, different, stylized and re-purposed piece of art. On the other hand, Napster's songs were the exact same ones I didn't want to pay for at the record store.

And this is where my opinion fails me. This is where law governing this kind of thing seems impossible.

The comparison of Napster's shared music to Fairey's stylized poster seems pretty cut and dry, but there is so much gray area in between. What about sampling someone else's music, in a new way, to create a new song? I understand the concept and reasoning behind protection, but I don't appreciate the way it seems to hinder creativity and prevent innovation.

Intellectual Property my @$$

I used to think, as an artist and a musician, that the idea of intellectual property was a good thing, and that it was important to maintain the rights of the artist to their work. However, the more I have really considered it, and the more I have seen these legal issues come to public attention, the more I begin to question the purpose and actual benefit of having legal intellectual property. The concept, it seems to me, is entirely based on the need to regulate the income generated by a work of art, and not really on the artist's right to ownership. This is just a convenient red herring, I think, that is used to cover up the real purpose of intellectual property law...to protect the profits of the corporations who "own" the work.

A good question to ask here is: what does it really mean to own a work of art? If it is able to be duplicate then it certainly has nothing to do with possession. Even a single unique artwork needs to be put out in the public to be viewed and appreciated. This relates to our previous discussion on the creative act of the artist, versus that of the spectator. When I create something for public view and use I am giving that creation away, it is no longer mine but is now a part of the culture to be consumed and digested and regurgitated by the critics of the public sphere. I can say what I want about the work still being "mine" but it doesn't really amount to much... unless I'm solely talking about my right to make money off of it. Today, with the rise of peer to peer sharing and and on-demand media, its starting to seem a little backwards and counter productive for a new artist to keep their artwork to themselves so someone doesn't "steal" it. Frankly, if you are serious about your art and really care about contributing to your culture, you should be be hoping and praying for others to steal your work. Its the best kind of flattery.

But then again, I would probably be up in arms and waving around copyright law books if someone were to actually steal my work and make a living off of it. This is a difficult subject to come to any definite conclusion about.

Radiohead & Nine Inch Nails

We’ve all done it. Either asked a friend to a burn a CD for us or vice versa. We’ve swopped mp3’s and downloaded free tracks online. We’ve made mixed CD’s of multiple songs and maybe even used a protected track in a professional presentation or public venue. In some way or another, we’ve all most likely committed basic copyright infringement on a very small scale. All the above are protected by copyright laws, but for the most part it’s really hard to enforce unless the crime is committed on a large scale like Napster.

I can't remember who the pioneer was, or even the first time I heard of this- but when Radiohead (In Rainbows) & Nine Inch Nails (Ghosts & the Slip) gave away their albums, for free, online- I thought at first it was too good to be true. I followed the links and was amazed that the only thing I needed to offer up in exchange for music was my name and email. In moments I would be enjoying some new tracks by well respected musicians. It seemed crazy to me that any commercial artist or record label would allow people to have their work for free. Maybe they have just given into the fact that in this day with digital media, most people are going to get their hands on it anyway - and it's almost impossible to enforce.

What resulted was amazing, the publicity the free downloads generated for the bands couldn't have been executed any better with a traditional marketing campaign, I would even argue that the buzz it created brought more people into the bands scope. The bands/labels basically cut out the cost of marketing and used the digital media and their intellectual property as means to generate interest and drive fans to their concerts- where the bands make their real money. The way the music industry is handling it's product and approach to marketing is much different then it was ten years ago. Bands need a Myspace page, they need to tweet (ha), it's all part of the new digital frontier where the lines of intellectual property seem to blur. I don't think free downloads of full length albums will be the model of the future for the music industry, but it is an amazing way to get your product and promotional material in the hands of potentially millions of fans without ever leaving your home, office or studio.

I do think digital media should be enforced through copyright laws. I believe open source projects and sharing of idea's through digital means will increase and become more popular, but companies, artist's, and entertainer's will always protect their work and their means to earn a living. Like Metallica and Dr.Dre... I can't blame them or the record companies for going after Napster.

Intellectual Property

Intellectual property (IP) is defined by Wikipedia as "a bundle of exclusive rights over creations of the mind, both artistic and commercial."

There has been a new trend developing when it comes to IP as it relates to web design and development. Over the last few years there have been more and more open source material available to the general public. (Ex: PHP, MySQL, CMS) The intention behind this movement is to benefit the community and advance technology by having everyone chip in. This would allow for new talent to enter the field and contribute who otherwise might not have. I feel that this is a great way for technology to advance. The immediate question that pops into one's mind is "well, if these folks work for free how do they make money?" After all, we do live in a capitalistic society.

It's no surprise that Open Source products are popular. As a result, individuals and companies are taking advantage and are getting creative when it comes to profiting from open source products. Many ask for donations in order to grow their product and maintain it's no-cost availability. Others, such as hallmark.com, put out free products (e-cards) and gradually move to charging low costs for them as their popularity grows. (Sort of like a drug dealer.)

Bottom line is, when a product is open to the public for improvement everybody wins.

My guilty music sharing past and a hopeful future with Spotify

Having been involved in file sharing from way back in the mIRC days I am particularly interested in the subject. I think that file sharing has completely changed the way that I listen to music. Before I started downloading music I would buy CDs (and a few cassettes) from artists that I heard on the radio or saw on MTV. Even though these were the days of “alternative” and the beginnings of “indie” music most of the music that I purchased was by fairly big, commercial bands. This was all I really had access to unless some friend's older sibling made him a mixed tape that got passed around. After I was introduced to file sharing I was suddenly able to listen to music without buying an entire album. I could dial up to AOL, search for a band on mIRC, leave the computer on all night and have a song or two downloaded by the morning. I even saved up some money and bought one of the first portable MP3 players. Suddenly a whole other world of music opened up to me. I learned that there was much, much better music available to me. I still bought albums, t-shirts and went to concerts, but they were very different bands than I had been to before.

Unfortunately this started to change as internet connections got faster, file sharing platforms got better and streaming music was easier to come by. As my digital music collection got bigger and my mp3 players capacities got progressively bigger and bigger, I bought less CDs. The fall of Napster temporarily put a dent in finding free music but it was quickly replaced by something else just like it. I still justified it by thinking that I was supporting smaller bands by downloading their music, seeing them live and occasionally buying a t-shirt or CD. Once torrents came along and sites like the much missed OiNK made downloading any album in its entirety amazingly fast and simple, I pretty much stopped buying music all together. I still felt guilty about it downloading all of this music but I would always blame the industry bigwigs for being too greedy and refusing to adapt.

Finally I have come across something that might be a game changer for the industry. I’m been using Spotify for the last few months and since then have entirely stopped illegally downloading music. Spotify is a streaming, standalone music client with millions of songs available for instant listening. Unlike pandora, you can choose exactly what song you want to listen to at any time. It is essentially like having iTunes with almost any song that you would ever want to listen to and it is legal (at least it is legal in the U.K., Sweden and a few other European countries). They make their money by having radio-style audio ads every three or four songs and graphic ads on the program while it is idle. They also offer a premium subscription for £10 a month with no ads and better sound quality. iPhone and Android applications for premium subscribers allow users to listen to music on mobile devices. I think that Spotify finally offers a fair tradeoff for music consumers who want to listen to music legally at a cost they are willing to pay: listening to ads for free or paying a monthly fee for ad-free music. Spotify is supposedly coming to the US and China this fall. I am really excited to see how Spotify does in bigger markets and hope that their monthly fee is a little lower than £10 a month here in the US.

Intellectual property -Copyright-

Copyright is meant to prevent unauthorized copying of creative works. It applies to written, artistic and musical works - including computer software. The aim is to ensure that the creators of these works, or those who own the rights to them, receive a fair reward.

Unfortunately, Arab countries have taken a relaxed view of copyright. In many places intellectual property laws are non-existent or are not enforced. There is evidence that this attitude - and particularly software piracy which is raampant throughout the Middle East - has hampered development in the field of technology.

There are several studies that have dealt with the importance of copyright protection and have identified its importance for the technology innovation process.This is on of the major problem all programmers and designers over there suffer from.

The only benefit from this attitude is that you can buy any software you want for just 1$ or 2$ ( cracked version ).

that Attitudes are beginning to change, however

http://www.aspip.org/ Arab Society for Intellectual Property

http://www.aipmas.org/

Copyright? What is that?

After reading the copyright articles, it reminded me if my previous job. Every year the company held an annual conference. Each year, a local artist was selected to represent the conference's location. As a new hire, I discovered for years, they used artwork from online or books to create he print materials. When I asked about copyright permission verification, I was told that it was needed. My mouth just dropped. I could not believe a organization that was crazy about copyrights and trademarks for their items, didn't think they needed permission to use someone else artwork. It was interesting to find out that they never got catch doing this. The print designs were mailed to several hundreds of people and placed online for everyone to view.

I found that some assumed only famous artwork were copyrighted and other had no idea.

The Internet, Old Records, and Me

Back in the Pleistocene, when I wasn't hunting mammoths or painting stuff on the walls of my cave, I used to spend a lot of time in used record stores. I liked them because they were cheap and because I there was always the possibility of finding something that I'd never heard of that would blow me away and thus add an additional measure of joy to my life. I liked all sorts of stuff, but my serious jones was for obscure psychedelia from between 1966 and '73. Album covers with bulgy, swirling typography and photos of guys in paisley tunics and Prince Valiant haircuts made me drool. The problem was, almost all that stuff was ridiculously expensive. I wasn't a serious collector, I just wanted to hear it. But unless I wanted to gamble $30 on a record that probably sucked, I was out of luck. When CD reissues started to come out, it was the same story--the more obscure something was, the more it cost.

Then, a few years ago, I discovered music blogs. Suddenly, I realized that there were hundreds of people with proclivities similar to mine, posting the music I craved on the internet, where I could download it for free. The ethics of it bothered me a bit--I've made my living as an artist my whole adult life, and I certainly think I should get paid for my work. But self-control has never been my strong suit, and I've been downloading like a maniac ever since.

In the years since I started, though, the issue has become much more nuanced. Most of the stuff I download is well over 35 years old. Almost none of it made money when originally released and even if it was legitimately reissued, it'd be unlikely to make money for anyone now--there simply isn't enough of an audience. In most cases, the people who made this music long ago went on to pursue other things and now many aren't even alive. In many cases, the original labels also are gone.

Actually, the fact that this music is being widely heard for the first time has given it a whole new life. There are numerous albums that have become internet "hits" 40 years after the fact, enough so that the surviving members of some bands have even reformed and begun touring. I have often seen albums posted by the original artists themselves and many other instances of artists writing commentary for albums being shared, grateful that they have a second chance at being heard.

The fact is, and I know this from my own experience, that artists distributed by the traditional means--publishers, music labels--don't make much, or any, money, at least from the sales of their work. There are so many middlemen taking a cut and there share is so small that they have to have massive sales to see any cash. Most print artists and writers make all their money from the advance, or in the case of musicians, touring. When copyright gets violated, therefore, it's often the middle men that are really getting hurt. The internet makes it possible to give something away and actually see benefits, in the form of a larger audience.

That doesn't mean I don't think copyright is irrelevant. No one wants to see their work taken by someone else, altered a bit and then presented as an original. Money aside, it's a violation. If you're famous and everyone knows who did the original, it's one thing. But if you're not, you feel screwed.

On the other hand, I think copyright has it's limits and there should be a recognition that are many cases when incorporating pieces of existing work into new works, especially when that appropriation is obvious(such as sampling in hip hop) that the new work is artistically valid. Though it should be acknowledged that the fees paid for samples have a blessing for many older and financially strapped musicians who, had there been no copyright laws, would never have seen a dime.

When you're small, it's an advantage to get bigger, when you have nothing, as the song says, you have nothing to lose. The internet allows people to distribute their stuff faster than ever, but it makes it harder for them to hold on to it as well. It's fine to say that everything should be free, but you might feel different when you have a baby crying in the next room. The story of Shepard Fairey is a case in point--he's suing people for appropriating his Andre the Giant image even as he's using copyrighted photos himself. By the way, since he reproduced no part of the photo in his final work(unlike Andy Warhol) and altered the final image substantially, I believe his use is clearly allowed. But if I was that photographer, I'd probably sue, too.

Image Rights

The debate about Shepard Fairey’s Hope poster highlights a hot issue for digital designers. What can we legally use in our design? Putting aside what I believe the answer should be and my collection of Shepard Fairey prints for a moment I’m going to focus strictly on copyright. Shepard Fairey’s Hope poster violates the Amount and Substantiality copyright rule. (1) It encompasses the essence of Mannie Garcia’s photo. The artwork is altered, but not to a degree that’s tranformative, and defending it as being just culturally transformative makes for a lightweight, subjective arguement.

As far as precedent goes — another artist who worked from photographs they didn’t own is Andy Warhol. Fairey has altered unlicensed photos approximately to the same degree that Warhol altered his unlicensed photos to become new artwork. Lucky for Warhol, his iconic Marilyn Monroe and Campbell soup cans were safe from copyright infringement. The Marilyn Monroe image was a publicity shot for the film Niagara, and presumably, in the public domain. And his tribute to Campbell soup was far better PR than a lawsuit from the soupmaker for using it's image. However, Warhol wasn’t always so lucky. He was sued in November 1966 by the photographer Patricia Caulfield for using her photograph in his "Flower" painting. Patricia Caulfield won the lawsuit. (2)

The subject matter of the Shepard Fairey print has drawn a lot of publicity and consequently has attracted a great deal of scrutiny. While I believe that technically he’s viotating copyright, I wonder, is it necessary for a massive news cooperative to persecute an artist for expressing his personal ideals without profitting in the process? Apparently it is. Personally I’d prefer a loosening of copyright law so I’d be able to cut and paste anything I come across. If it was my photo — I like to believe I cherish unobstructed creativity above profit and as an artist would want others to share my point of view. However, if I owned a photo that was going to be used in a way that I believed would damage it’s integrity I’d want to have say over it’s fate.

1. Fair Use, From Wikipedia

Retrieved September 25th, 2009 from Wikipedia website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use

2. Q: Why Wasn't Warhol Sued? A: He Was

Retrieved September 26th, 2009 from Nolo's Patent, Copyright & Trademark Blog website:

http://www.patentcopyrighttrademarkblog.com/2009/07/warhol-infringement-lawsuits.html

HOPE

Shepard Fairey's HOPE poster was a crucial advertisement in Barrack Obama's 2008 Presidential Campaign, and continues to leave a lasting effect on the general community. This single image was reproduced over 800,000 times during the campaign alone. Fairey's red, white, and blue style has been used on many sites such as obamiconme to recreate one's self in the same way. Through all the positive recognition and advertisement brought about for both Obama and Fairey, there are arguments condemning and discrediting Fairey's work due to the fact that he "stole" the original picture from Mannie Garcia.

Shepard Fairey may have used the picture, but I believe that he did not violate the Fair Use Law. Garcia himself states that, "If you put all the legal stuff away, I’m so proud of the photograph and that Fairey did what he did artistically with it, and the effect it's had". Garcia had originally taken the picture for an assignment under the direction of the Associated Press (AP), however, Garcia believes that the rights to the image are ultimately his. I side with Garcia as well. Just because the work that one does is for a company, it still is the original product of the creator. The first of four factors under the Fair Use law states that "The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purpose". Altough Fairey profited from the HOPE poster, all of the proceeds went back into his work, so he essentially did not gain a "profit" per say. In the end, what is done is done and both of the creators of this artwork, Shepard Fairey and Mannie Garcia, are content with the outcome. The only lawsuits being filed deal with corporate infestation of an individual's work.

Take My Work, Please

Hi, my name is Todd and I'm a shareaholic.

I make things to amuse, entertain and/or stimulate others. The more the merrier. If that means my work is stolen, redistributed, copied etc., so be it.

Protecting one's work from theft or infringement means narrowing the potential audience. It's like having a child and keeping it locked in the basement. It clogs the creative process. I'd rather have my grapes stolen and enjoyed than die on the vine.

Take what you want, I'll make more:

http://toddmarrone.com/
http://twitter.com/toddmarrone

Intellectual Property

This week's assignment is all about Intellectual Property and ownership. I'd like to first welcome Todd Marrone, Russ Starke and Jeff Lyons to the blog. They will be contributing and commenting this week.

The official assignments are below. Please be sure to do the readings. In class I'd like to debate topics such as Shepard Fairey's lawsuits and the former Napster lawsuit, so please come prepared to discuss.

Read:

• http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html#mywork
• http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html#howmuch
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napster
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_property
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard_Fairey#Legal_issues_with_appropriation_and_fair_use

For ANYthing you write, please try to comment on whether you think Intellectual Property is still relevant in the digital age, if it's different how? why?

Some possible things to muse about:

• Read about the lawsuits around Shepard Fairey’s HOPE poster and comment on whether you believe Mr. Fairey was acting within Fair Use.
• Go to uspto.gov and do a search in the database for a trademark or company that owns a trademark. Blog about what you find.
• Blog your thoughts about how the electronic world is affected by intellectual property rights.
• Blog two paragraphs defending online music sharing (such as the original napster). Then blog two paragraphs condemning it.
  

creativity or innovation

To me, innovation is the basis of great design. Innovation has the ability to create new and easy ways to design. Without innovation design would probably remain the same and not look much different between artists. This relates specifically to creativity. Each artist has a certain level of creativity to separate their work from the pack. Creativity and innovation go hand in hand as each depends on each other. Creativity advances as new technology advances as does innovation because of the advancing resources available to designers.

I believe that creativity has a limit with limited resources. There are only so many options one can design something, but with innovation creativity can be broadened.

Innovation vs. Creativity

Innovation won’t exist without creativity; to be innovative you must Come up with or find creative ideas.

Creativity is the ability to present traditional ideas in magnificent way or create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods or imagination. Innovation on the other hand is implementing the great ideas into the marketplace in the form of a new product or service.

Innovation is the practical application of creativity into something that has an impact. So, it’s about action more than simply great ideas. Creativity is the first and a necessary but not sufficient component of innovation. Creativity may exist on it’s own. It need not have a goal or purpose, but Innovation must have a beginning in creativity.

Certainly not all creative ideas can be innovative, creative ideas are easy to come up with and there are many of them, but not all of them easy to be implemented.

Creativity & Innovation

In my opinion, when it comes to design everything has already been done. However, with some creativity the new design may come off as innovative.

I think creativity is taking something that already exists and improving/changing it slightly whereas innovation requires the idea to be original. Furthermore, I don't think you can have innovation without creativity but you can have creativity without innovation. I think to be a great designer you need to be not only creative but also innovative. You must be capable of generating new ideas.

Whenever I see the "New and Improved" tag it always cracks me up. How can something be new AND improved?! It has to be one or the other. It's such a creative marketing scheme!

Creativity and Innovation

As many of us have already said, creativity and innovation go hand in hand with each other. Each is equally important in design. From what I understand, creativity is the generation of new ideas and concepts and innovation is a new way of doing something. I was recently roaming around the internet and I found a great example of the innovative. Supposedly Ford is coming out with a Fusion Hybrid and the dashboard in the car is digital and gives the driver a rather computer savy experience. What was once a plain old plastic dashboard with gauges and numbers has now been transformed into a sleek and sophisticated digital design. The digital dashboard is just a new way of looking at an old design. But in building this digital dashboard creativity was also needed. In my opinion a person can be creative without being innovative but not the other way around. So in a way the two terms are married to one another. Below is the link to the video about the Ford Fusion hybrid with its digital dashboard. It is very cool =)

http://www.businessweek.com/innovate/next/archives/2008/12/inside_fords_sm.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5dRzx7YGBNM&feature=player_embedded

Innovative Creativity

As a creative professional, the words creative and innovative are often used synonymously when being briefed for a new project. I believe that both creativity and innovation are imperative parts of the design process. I also believe that creativity is a part of innovation. A concept cars is a great example of this. A designers sketch or rendering can almost seem surreal and sometimes impossible, but through innovation and creative problem solving what was once just an off the wall idea can be brought to the market and used by the masses.

Within the realm of Digital Design, innovation, in my opinion, is probably one of the most important aspects of the process. People always want to experience new technologies and see amazing visual tricks and slick animations within our products. It's the best innovators that grab and hold our attention for the longest periods of time. When information or anything is done in a creative manner, there is a better chance that we'll retain the information that has been presented to us.

Creativity/Innovation

It seems to me that creativity and innovation are universally bound. Creativity is the ability to create something new, fresh, interesting. It's using traditional methods and/or ideas in a new way, new ideas and/or methods altogether, or re-imagining what already exists to create something new.

In the digital realm, I think innovation and creativity are, as Terry said, certainly byproducts of a process. I also agree with Andrew, who talked in his post about innovation being an end result of creativity. When there is a goal in mind that is achieved by these means; using the same methods in a unique way, or applying new methods to something familiar, the final product often stands out and makes an impact. My favorite agency, Hello Monday, seems to have a real handle on this concept. Instead of "new for new's sake," Hello Monday reaches each project's goals, which oftentimes utilizes a rethinking of standard practice. For example, the first site I saw that they'd designed, Red Issue, features gestural navigation as a response to specific deliverables, which were to reflect the hand-drawn logo throughout the site, and create a free, fun, and playful environment for users that reflects the feel of the clothing featured on the site. This site feels like a great example of innovation and creativity on a digital platform through applying new methods to reach a goal.

As we contribute to the digital landscape, I think there is endless opportunities to be creative and innovative simply by striving to reach our goals through the best process, and recognizing where new ideas can be applied in order to best meet that goal.

Is there a difference?

The difference between the words "creativity" and "innovation" seems to be about how we use those words. Within my vocabulary, a person is creative, while a product is innovative (people use words differently, so this is arguable). In my mind creativity has more to do with the mind of the creator and the act of creation, while innovation has more to do with the creation itself and its use in society.

I would characterize a creative person as one who is able to connect seemingly disparate and previously unrelated elements in ways that most people could not have conceived. They are more easily able to see the connections that most cannot, and create something "new" out of old parts and techniques.

These individuals use their creativity to innovate; they will see the new opportunities and needs for old products and be able to act on them. Creativity, perhaps, could be a means to an end, while innovation might be seen as the end itself.

Consequence of Ideas

A classical example of creativity is a great ad campaign. Especially one that can capture a culture's imagination. For example, the Gap swing commercial. Nike and VW advertising (circa the late nineties), and for much of the past decade, Apple commercials. The iPod ad campaign of silhouetted dancers on brightly colored backgrounds was creative and even in it's simplicity, innovative. There's no question it left a mark on our culture. While not quantifiable in it's emotional impact, the fact that it can be remembered collectively is a testament to it's significance as part of the human experience. But a larger part of that mark on our culture came from the innovation of the device it advertised.

In a short amount of time the iPod evolved to the significantly more innovative iPhone. Which isn't new technology, but a visionary revision of it. The iPhone brought pocket computing to the masses. Opening up a world of infinite access to people and data. This transformation goes beyond capturing a culture's imagination, it shapes who we are.

Creativity or Innovation: You Choose

The difference between innovation and creativity, especially in the digital world, always seemed very little to me. The concept of innovation always seems to create something that is easier for the user to use or an item that turns people's perception of a specific thing differently. There always seems to be a need for innovation for progression to happen and I believe that it is a key factor in the digital world. Without innovation digital design would be stuck in a loop without anything pushing it forward and changing certain aspects.

Creativity on the other hand is a different story. I believe that it goes hand and hand with innovation and that it can stem from it. But creativity isn't always a necessity in my opinion. There is a need for it though and most of the time when someone is actually creating they invent something that seems completely unique and the term "creativity" is thrown in the mix. These happens in certain situations but creativity still seems to be something that is developed after the innovation that was created. I feel that we need both of these descriptions for the digital world because a person can completely change the way a user looks at a web page but without the creativness behind someone may never enjoy or even visit the site.

Creativity vrs. Innovation: A Toughie

One is tempted to say that creativity and innovation are pretty much the same, but then, why would we need two words to describe them? Certainly they are closely related--siblings, at least. Personally, I'd say that "creativity" generally implies inventing something new and "innovation" means improving something that exists already. Americans, for instance, created television, but the Japanese were so innovative with television production and design that they put the Americans out of business. Of course, in real life, creation doesn't take place in a vacuum, and in art and design there isn't anything(that I've seen, at least) that doesn't build on or incorporate what came before it. In the end, I'm not sure the question of whether there's a difference between creativity and innovation is very important. Artists and designers do the best they can to solve their problems and the problems of their clients and the solutions they come up with are either acceptable or not. It's always nice to discover, at the end of the process, that one has innovated. But the important thing is that all interested parties be satisfied. Which is to say, I think creativity and innovation should be thought of as byproducts of a process, not goals in themselves. Trying to be original is a waste of time, and if you think differently, you're not a true post-modern.

Assignment

Some have had difficulty following the links in the syllabus because the Duchamp link has recently gone down... so here are the links for the assignment due next week.

Before you do anything, blog about creativity vs. innovation and how they contribute to digital design. Then do the following:

Read Marcel Duchamp's "The Creative Act":

You can find it all over the internet... Marcel Duchamp wrote an essay called  "The Creative Act" There is a copy on this page: http://www.iaaa.nl/cursusAA&AI/duchamp.html

Watch:
Charles Leadbeater on Innovation: http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/charles_leadbeater_on_innovation.html

Creativity vs. Innovation

Short and sweet:
People always tend to use the terms innovation and creativity interchangeably. Hell, I do it all the time. I feel creativity is think up a great ideas. Innovation, however, is creativity implemented or bringing that creative thought to life.

Creativity vs. Innovation

As much as I think about it, I continue to come to the conclusion that creativity and innovation are one in the same. When one tells you to "be creative", most, if not all of us will think of or reference designers that we aspire to be, or appreciate. They have gotten to that point with innovative decisions. People today say that everything has been done. So then, how does one become an innovative designer? Or, for that matter, what is innovation within today's standards? I see that the most innovative designers of their time have taken something or a combination of somethings that already exist and using them in a way that has never been seen before. Take Andy Warhol for example. There is nothing of his popular art that was not an adaptation on someone or something else, but he took icons such as Campbell's Tomato Soup and Marylin Monroe and showed them in a new, and innovative light for the time. Everything has to influenced, in some way or another, by something that has come before it.

When one has an innovative idea, I find it creative by default. So then, what is the difference between creativity? I see it as the same principle of a rectangle and a square: innovation is always creative, but creativity is not always innovative.

This is just a few ideas off the top of my head, a bit unorganized and opinionated. Hopefully these articles will make these two words make a bit more sense to me.

Human and computer language

I find Don Norman’s article to be particularly topical for me right now as I am in the midst of learning a new programming language. Never before have I really thought about why it is so fundamentally difficult to learn computer languages. These languages are so very different from the flexible, contextual and dynamic verbal and written language that our brains are programmed to learn, input and output. Computer languages are strict, specific and quantitative. The benefit of this is that once they are configured correctly, they yield precise, repeatable results. Humans, on the other hand, are much better at handling dynamic, ever-changing situations.

As a digital designer who has to design interface between human and computers, I can see why this is important for me to understand. When looked at in these terms it is evident that designers have a great deal of responsibility to bridge this divide. You need to be extremely aware of your humanity and the way in which your brain functions. What makes this so difficult is that you must also have a strong understanding of the inner mechanics of the software running underneath.

I think that this is one of the reasons that blogs, social networking sites and Twitter have become so popular. Their simplicity has made the web much more accessible to a greater number of users. People obviously want to post content online, it just took years of refinement for designers to bridge the gap between human and computer understanding.

Communication is Key

The Shannon-Weaver model was created by two researchers, Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver, who were both trying to convey how a message travels from one source to another. This idea basically suggests that the original source of information has to be "transmitted" from the source to a "receiver" and then interpreted by the "destination". In between these steps the information is stopped by noises and sounds. These noises can be seen as what makes the information evolve into something different.

In the communication world of today people interpret messages different depending on the language that is spoken, the media source, or even how a person moves during a conversation. The Shannon-Weaver model can be applied to how a viewer reads information off of a blog. They take in this information very quickly but specific "noises" do change what is received. These "noises" could be comments that are left on a certain article or how the site is even set-up. We as humans are known to take opinions that are different then are own very harshly and when someone disagrees with us we take notice. The original source can vastly change if someone on the Internet wants it to come across as sad, happy, or even destructive.

Example: A person posts on their blog that a certain movie is horrible and that if you spent money to see it your an idiot. Another person searches the movie title on google and finds this persons site. They see the comment and decide that they shouldn't go see the movie even though they were anticipating it for years. The bloggers opinion changed the viewers mind because of the media it was written on.

The Shannon-Weaver model can be seen as accurate when comparing the interactions between people face to face but the Internet shows that the model is a little out of date. When people can just find reviews for a movie with the click of a button they forget about who directed the movie or what actors are in it. They take the opinion of people on the Internet as golden and think that everything is coming across as an honest opinion. Thus the "noise" isn't seen and is interpreted as fact and not a ranting of someone who hates a movie.

Analog vs. Digital- Going Full Circle

It seems as though today we have become more digital than ever. Technology continues to advance and create "easier" options and ways to do virtually everything. Machines seem like they are doing the work for us now, and we as humans don't even have to think about it. At the same time, all these technological advancements have several consequences that draw back to our roots as human, We are analog creatures that have created a digital world for ourselves. Matthew, in a previous post, makes several points that address the digital/ analog discussion. Matthew states that technology is intended to work for us, but the more we advance technology, the more we have to learn to keep up with it. So if we are such analog creatures by nature, why make a digital world? We seem to be bridging the gap.

A relentless dream of researchers, the army, and gamers alike is to create a virtual reality. This is where, I feel, in its full potential, analog and digital truly collide. As stated in Don Norman's Being Analog article, "an analog device is one in which the representation of information corresponds to its physical structure." The example he gives is the way in which a phonograph records the magnetic wave on a tape to create a certain range of sounds. Analog is more "natural" or literal. Digital is taking the literal, and translating it into a series of numbers to describe the original. Binary is seemingly the root of all digital. Digital is the "behind the scenes" work. So if analog is the literal interpretation of an action, and digital is a command that means the same thing, the between ground must be a "virtual reality".

Norman continues to define the difference between analog and digital, saying that analog is generally seen as "bad" and digital "good". Digital is newer and more modern per say, but this does not discredit the inherent human nature of an analog experience. Norman says "analog might be better for future machines" because of the "noise" factor, and that analog future is slowly but surely becoming a reality. Matthew mentions the Wii as an analog/ digital device, one where the user directly interacts with the digital screen to make whatever they are doing a reality. This is the beginning to our human endeavor to create virtual reality. We as humans will never cease to keep creating, for it is a part of us. We strive to create virtual reality to benefit us not only to simulate war and realtime, as well as sharpen reflexes in the case of the army, but as a form of entertainment. From 1980s movies like Tron, to current films such as The Matrix and Gamer, we have always wanted to create the most convenient, realistic simulation we can, to get as close to something without killing ourselves. Soon, this will no longer be a dream of the movies, but a reality to experience in your own living room.

Being Analog

I found the article Being Analog both confusing and intriguing. I agree with Norman's idea that humans are analog beings. "People are compliant: we adapt ourselves to the situation. We are flexible enough to allow our bodies and our actions to fit the circumstances." I also agree with his point in the end of his article that humans and machines are better when they work together. Neither analog or digital should have a higher preference. Although as I was reading through this article I realized that his statement that "the dilemma facing us is the horrible mismatch between requirements of those human built machines and human capabilities" seemed to contradict that earlier point. As Anna pointed out as well, are humans and machines such a terrible mismatch? Both humans and machines are essential, the digital is no more important in this day and age then the analog.

Shannon And Weaver Model

Communication occurs when one part of the system becomes a transmitter and creates or produces a relationship, called the signal, that travels through space and time to make contact with a second part of the system, the receiver.

These terms are taken from the model of communication that was first introduced by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver in the late 1940s.

According to Shannon and Weavers model, a message begins at an information source, which is relayed through a transmitter, and then sent via a signal towards the receiver. But, before it reaches the receiver, the message must go through noise, or sources of interference. Finally the receiver must convey the message to us .

Shannon-Weaver model describe all kind of Human and electronic communication , For example :

- In human speech the medium is the air. Signals are waves formed in the air by the vocal cords of the transmitter and noticed by the ear of the receiver.

- In dolphin communication the medium is water. The signals waves formed in the water by one dolphin and noticed by another.

- In computer communication the medium is an electric current. Signals are patterns in a flow of electrons that are produced within the transmitting computer and detected by the receiving computer.

however, most signals are subject to varying amounts of noise .

Clearly, their model was primarily intended to illustrate the concepts of signal and noise in the transmission channel of communication technologies, it was subsequently adopted as a general theory of human communication.

http://everything2.com/title/Shannon-Weaver+model+of+communication

http://www.rdillman.com/HFCL/TUTOR/ComProcess/ComProc2.html#SWMOD

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Provide_a_detailed_description_the_shannon_weaver_sender-message-receiver_model_of_communication

Becoming Human

Digital technology is advancing at a rate exponentially faster than we are capable of keeping up with it. Presumably, the intention of technology is to work for us. Yet as much as we try to use technology to simplify our lives we are required to learn more and more to keep up with it. Keeping up with it is difficult enough, however we are also challenged to understand and work with something that is fundamentally not at all like us.

We've made great progress from command line entry of early home computers like the TRS-80 to GUIs used by modern computers and devices today. We're beginning to replace clumsy mouse input devices and game controllers with physical gestures on touchscreens and Wii-mots, bringing us much closer to a human analog interaction that suits our nature and evolutionary history. Since Don Norman wrote his essay, "Being Analog." We have indeed come a long way. However I believe Don Norman is challenging us to push further than how we interact with technology and explore a fundamental change in the DNA of technology itself.

In our current model, the user is tasked with accommodating the needs of the system they interact with. As the user changes, the system is incapable of changing with it, at least not without some help. Unless there was a way digital technology could learn from it's users and adapt to fit their individual needs. Artificial intelligence may be the answer, more specifically bio-inspired computing. Bio-inspired computing utilizes an array of programs that go through a lifecycle where they are automatically created, modified (or mutated), combined (or cross-bred), and deleted to reprogram a system to adapt to changing circumstances.(1) Utilizing technology with this approach can predict human response, and grow to meet our preferences. Consequently making a very non-human digital technology capable of changing as we change. The more we use it the more it becomes like us.

1. Biologically inspired computing, From Wikipedia

Retrieved September 9, 2009, from Wikipedia website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-inspired_computing

Being Analog

Humans are analog beings. If we weren't than we wouldn't have "maybe" in our vocabulary.

In the reading "Being Analog" the author talks about how machines and humans don't mix because the former is digital while the latter is analog. "The dilemma facing us is the horrible mismatch between requirements of these human-built machines and human capabilities." Is it really bad though? Do we want machines to be analog just like us? What's the point?! We need machines to do jobs that either don't require much analysis or require so much analysis that if a human was performing the task it would take significantly longer. Sounds like a good plan to me!

The author discussed Frederick Taylor and the effects his principles of scientific management had on people. Taylor's theory was that every procedure can be broken down to basic tasks that do not require thinking and therefore can be performed robotically and efficiently. The author claimed that not requiring people to think is a big price to pay in the name of efficiency. Bring in the machines! If a task does not require thought than why not have people build a machine that does it? Everybody wins.

Machines were created to make lives easier. (Though I sometimes wonder if that's true when my computer acts up or when my internet is down and I'm totally paralyzed and not able to work.) They're taking over the world. I don't think there's anything we can do to stop it. (Do we even want to?) So, as such, we as designers must accommodate these circumstances. We can't deny that electronic communication is the way of the world. So when designing we must take that into consideration and adjust our design appropriately. If we do not than we will be out of a job.

Turntables, Vinyl, & Tubes

I related the reading "Being Analog" to a familiar world to me - Music. As an active music enthusiast- my friends and I are always seeking out vintage instruments, tube amps, analog recordings, and analog circuitry. When we get together to play or listen to a particular recording I feel that the older, analog pieces always sounder better to me. The music is always so much warmer and the imperfections that happen through an analog recording create a mood that is difficult to replicate with digital sound. For example, the crackling of an old record before the music begins or when you hear music played live all the noises that the instruments make from people moving around behind them, even the glow the tubes give off when they are warm and at full capacity. To me, this all adds to the overall feel and experience. Digital recordings try and recreate all of this but do not always do such a good job. Humans are analog beings. The world we live in is both analog and digital, mostly digital.

It was interesting that Don Norman stated the difference between analog and digital and the conceptions that digital is superior to analog. I'm in agreement that digital often makes a lot of sense, especially with the machines and devices we use. As a designer, I rely on technology to make a living. If it weren't for the internet and computers my daily work would be at a much slower pace. It would take me a day or two to hand draw an environment/product precisely and only takes me a few hours with the software I use. Digital vs analog is a matter of opinion and there are pro's and con's on both sides of the fence. I think having the understanding and knowledge of when to use what means of communication is the important component of the debate.

As designers we are communicators. The importance of understanding technology and electronic communications is a huge part of what we do and what we should be experts at. Almost all communication in our world is done via digital media (email, websites, blogs, digital images, etc). We need to be able to manipulate this medium and use it in ways to communicate our ideas in an aesthetically pleasing manner. As designers we should also have an understanding of the analogous means of communication (sketching, writing, speaking). In my experience, some clients respond better to sketches of an environment then to computer renderings. Mainly because computer renderings are rigid and look like they can not be changed. Hand sketches are more free flowing and approachable, allowing people to comment and make suggestions with greater ease. "The world is not neat and tidy."

The Shannon Weaver Model & Human Communication

Communication between people is not as simple as source, transmitter, channel, receiver, destination. The Shannon Weaver model may describe the workings of the physical tools we use to communicate, since it was invented to help engineers develop these things. But I don't think we are referring to the tools alone when we speak of electronic communications. The model does not take into account the meaning of the messages transmitted, it assumes that all communication follows certain structural paths, and that content is dropped in like a passenger and is irrelevant to the success of the transmission. This may be true of an email; whether you're talking politics or the sports has no bearing on whether the message will go through. But such differences do matter when we think about how the actual conversation itself will play out.

Example:
We have all lied or deceived at some point in our life. The act of lying is an instance of communication that requires much more than the 5 components of the model: the intentions of the speaker and the context of the lie are very important; if the speaker doesn't intend to deceive and doesn't think the listener is dumb enough to be deceived, then there is no lie...the question of whether the listener actually is dumb enough to be deceived complicates it even more. I think we would all agree that we don't just use words to mean what they mean: we lie, we insinuate, we joke, we tease, we promise, we preach. All these modes of communication require us to recognize that others can see our intentions when we speak, and that they can see we recognize this, and we can see that they can see... you get the idea. In addition to this, there are actual meanings to the words we use, there are conventions of language that we are obliged to follow (unlike postmodern art, words still have some meaning).

It seems to me the most interesting bits of communication occur when we intentionally exploit the differences between intentions and rules, and that, I think, is where us designers can do some interesting work. In creating digital media, we need to take these complexities into account, since electronic communication is still human communication after all, regardless of the tools employed. Our imprecision, creativity and complexity need to be accounted for in our designs if they are going to succeed.

The Shannon & Weaver Model

While this model seems to be acclaimed as renowned model for communication research, it seems to have outdated itself and is in need of a renovation. While in the digital environment some of these elements are viable such as transmission and reception, there are other elements that have aged a bit. One of the issues i see with the model is the idea of one fixed sender and one intended receiver. On a platform such as the world wide web, the idea of a receiver needs to be adjusted in order to compensate for the ability for multiple and possibly unintended demographics to view the message. The idea of the sender has also drastically with the internet and the popularization of new forms of communication.

Take even this blog we are posting on for example, Which one of us is the sender and which the receiver? In an environment where multiple users are posting, referencing each other, commenting on responses, redirecting people; The Shannon & Weaver model begins to lose its structure and becomes less applicable to an online environment.

The idea of noise also needs to be interpreted differently in this digital environment. Noise was originally a term applied to telecommunications and on the internet i feel it has different implications. Noise can be several different interferences, such as a low bandwidth not allowing a user to fully experience rich media, or cross browser issues where information is not displayed properly (cough..internet explorer...).

In my opinion, this model is a decent structure to gain an idea of information communication and a way for us to understand some of the steps that go into sending a message. I do feel however that it has been outdated and with new and different ways in which we have developed to communicate in an online environment.

A Neat Little (Digital) World

Dave Matthews sings in one of his songs, "Be wary of those who believe in a neat little world 'cuz it's just... crazy you know that it is". I think this sums up my stance on the concept of humans as analog beings. Digital, certainly, is neat, tidy, and discrete. But we analog beings each make inferences, draw conclusions, and make assumptions based on our own complex and personal experiences, education, and emotions. Take this specific assignment: to blog about a specific reading. The reading is exactly the same each time it's read, but how we each read it is unique. With billions of discrete, personal experiences, doesn't it make sense that we're created a digital mode of thinking, that eliminates the nuance of human error, emotion, experience? It is our analog mode of thinking, understanding, and learning that has allowed us to create the digital way of thinking, which goes where we cannot. The mistake has been in trying to make humans digital, when digital is simply a tool of the analog.

What we have, with digital, is a human creation. Digital does not exist naturally in our human world. Where we cannot escape our analog thinking, in comes digital. The subtlety of analog is erased with digital. I can't do complex arithmetic without it becoming a personal experience - I want to equate the numbers with tangible things - money, units of measurement, etc. Numbers take on meaning. Take out the thought behind the numbers and - in comes digital - simple math, unclouded numbers and equations without thought or experience or social context. Just. Numbers.

As designers, I think we have a great responsibility. As we all have been and continue to be more dependent on digital in all areas of our lives, it's our job to bridge the gap. We must be sure that there is a compromise between the "slavery to accuracy" that Don Norman explains is implied by "being digital," and the intrinsically analog experience each person has with the world. When we design interfaces, we have to work with the medium in which we are building, and at the same time for the people we are building for. We have to design in terms of yes/no, on/off, 0/1 for the kinda/sorta, sometimes/a little bit, maybe/it depends. We have a job that is to do what I think is the ultimate goal of digital, which is to provide support to the masses. We've created the digital to help us be more productive, and so when we build upon them, we must build them for use by the analog.

The Shannon Weaver Model

The Shannon Weaver Model of Communicate was developed by Claude Shannon and Warren Weaver two researchers at Bell Telephone Labs. Originally, "Their goal was to ensure the maximum efficiency of telephone cables and radio waves." In their attempts they developed a mathematical theory of communication which would prove to aid in great advancements in the way information was transferred and made information "measurable for the first time". The Model is broken down into five elements:

An information source, which produces a message.

A transmitter, which encodes the message into signals

A channel, to which signals are adapted for transmission

A receiver, which 'decodes' (reconstructs) the message from the signal.

A destination, where the message arrives.

A sixth element, noise is a dysfunctional factor: any interference with the message travelling along the channel (such as 'static' on the telephone or radio) which may lead to the signal received being different from that sent.

By viewing the transfer of information in this light computer scientist and communication engineers where able to enhance the "capacity of various communication channels in 'bits per second' and it led to very useful work on redundancy in language".

The Shannon Weaver Model can the been seen today all over in the way that information is transferred both manually and digitally. All the usual suspects such as email, text, IM, twitter and anything else you can think of, on a very basic level, follows this transfer protocol. I believe the largest impact of this model was the way it inspirited the "measurement of information" and the effects of that impact us every single time we access a computer.

>http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/short/trans.html#D

>http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Provide_a_detailed_description_the_shannon_weaver_sender-message-receiver_model_of_communication

Analigital

I feared this reading would be another of those "things were so much better when we were just hunter-gatherers" type screeds. There was certainly a good deal of that, but one can hardly argue with the author's thesis, that people shouldn't expect others, particularly their employees, to act like machines. The portrayal of the digital-analog divide seemed unnecessarily stark, and when I checked the date of the article on the footnote, I could see why--it was written in 1998. A lot's changed since then on the digital frontier, and I would argue that the way most people experience the digital world today is a lot closer to the organic, integrated model that the author argues for. Certainly the assertion that as technology gets more complex it gets more alienating has not turned out to be true for most people. Today, you don't have to know anything about how computers work to use them effectively and extremely advanced technology has become so integrated into normal folk's lives that they barely notice it anymore. If anything, widespread access to technology and the Internet have led to less old-fashioned, assembly-line type work, at least in the developed world. Today, millions of people who would've have once punched time clocks in offices and factories can do the same work on their own schedules at home. As for increasing specialization--well, it's true that 200 years ago, it was possible to read almost everything available on most major subjects in a single lifetime. But I'm not sure why it's a bad thing you can't do that anymore--in any case, given the complexity of modern life and the instability of most careers, the majority of people have a lot more general knowledge than the article gives them credit for.

Having computers at the center of society has of course come at a cost. People are more alienated and atomized, and we're losing many of the key consensus institutions, like mass-consumption media, not to mention actual neighborhoods and communities, that once held us together. But have people become more like machines? I don't think so. If anything, the primacy of digital media has reinforced our psychological "analog-ness". Paradoxically, the DIY reality of the web has allowed us to give freer reign to our irrationality and emotions than our parents or grandparents, back in the rigid and rationalist mid-20th century. It's a paradox, but I believe it's true--what's happened is actually the opposite of what the author feared back in 1998. Of course, one could say that constructing a reality out of digital phantoms is itself a symptom of the loss of understandable, "analog" reality. But it's not new. Maybe we should be comparing ourselves not to hunter-gathers but medieval peasants, who, because they lived in a world they couldn't understand, allowed themselves to be governed by all sorts of irrational fears and superstitions.