Tim Booth

My experience with online technologies during the first four weeks of semester has largely revolved around the use of the social networking site MySpace in order to develop my web project. Other online technologies such as Twitter, Tumblr and Flickr have also been used to supplement and expand the project. Most of these web 2.0 technologies (with the exception of Twitter due to BCM101) were largely unfamiliar to me before undertaking the DIGC101 web project. This has resulted in a natural learning curve in using web 2.0 technologies while simultaneously developing an online identity.   

The use of these web 2.0 technologies, particularly MySpace, has been the most significant time that, as a web user, I have shifted from being a consumer to a user and producer of content. The approaches I have taken in producing this content were noted by Moore (2009) as being the ‘playful’ and ‘performative’ methods. The ‘playful’ method is described as an ‘experimental approach to problem solving’. The development of my web project (the problem) has been largely experimental in that I chose to create a MySpace page for a fictional band. This required a unique layout for the MySpace page which took much experimenting with CSS and image editing software in order to customise fonts, colours, images, backgrounds and information. The ‘performative’ method which is outlined as being an ‘improvisational and explorative identity’ came in the form of the music that I produced for the band and then uploaded to the MySpace page just as a real artist would. The results of these approaches to my use of web 2.0 technologies can be seen here. Due to inexperience and time constraints, it can be seen that the page that I have created is fairly basic and lacking in features compared to that of say, Muse for example.

Twitter and Tumblr have mainly been used over the past four weeks to plan my web project and to issue updates to followers about new additions to the project. It is interesting and handy to see the progression and changes that have been made to the project by looking over the archived posts on Twitter and Tumblr. This usefulness of Twitter in academic communication is highlighted by Miners (2009) who notes that its particular kind of networking does not involve ‘poking friends or posting your results from quizzes’, which has led to it being embraced by a large number of professors.

Unintentionally and inadvertently, Flickr came to be used in my web project. This was the result of using a layout generator to customise the MySpace page. The generator, which was one of the only ones compatible with a musician profile, required the use of a Flickr hosted image if a custom background was needed. This required me signing up for a Flickr account and uploading the band logo I had created with Paint Shop Pro. The generator site then imported the image through a built in login to Flickr. My one-off use of Flickr goes against its traditional uses which are outlined by Murray (2008) as being collections of thousands of images, usually photographs that involve features such as ‘tags, groups and batches’.

The converging of all these web 2.0 technologies has created an effective way to use the image/visual and sound channels of communication to communicate interpersonally and directly with a multitude of web users all over the world (Moore 2009). The communication is also asynchronous which allows users to listen, view, and comment on the project at any time which can then be acknowledged and replied to by me at a later time. Suhr (2009) agrees that MySpace has provided an effective outlet for independent musicians to ‘gain acceptance and legitimacy’ and to express their music without relying on ‘mass network channels’.

As noted by Whelan (2009), it can be seen that I have taken advantage of the ‘new space’ that has been provided by advances in the internet for the purposes of both ‘the elaboration and performance of social identity’ and ‘the production and distribution of culture’. It can also be said that, in contrast to what Boyd (2007) states, I have gone against the primary purpose of social networking sites, which is to communicate with people who are already part of an extended social network i.e. engaging in folksonomy or tagging (Moore 2009). Instead, as I previously had no experience with MySpace, I have opted to become friends with the bands that influenced my band such as The Prodigy and Metallica, in the hope that their fans would find their way to my page and discover my music. As of this writing I currently have 105 profile views and 34 total plays of my 4 songs, so it would appear that this approach has worked fairly well.

Another dominant characteristic of the social networking site which I have not fully embraced is described by Tufekci (2008) as being a profile centred on a ‘representation of the self’. As my project is a fictional band, the MySpace profile makes no mention of me at all as if the band were legitimate; however the genre of music that the band makes is a reflection of my interests, so Tufekci is still correct in a way in that part of me is still represented. The direction I have taken is more akin to what is described by Warschauer & Grimes (2008) as ‘the many-to-many distribution from authors to audiences of multimodal artifacts and the automated presentation of user-selected content’.  

Even with my limited experience with using web 2.0 technologies before undertaking the DIGC101 web project, the construction of media content that was previously only possible for traditional media producers is made fairly simple by web 2.0 applications for anyone, regardless of their level of technical expertise (Harrison & Barthel 2009). I have discovered this to be fairly accurate and with a little more time and effort I believe that I could have a MySpace page close to the aesthetic level of some of the world’s biggest bands that have been aforementioned.

References

Boyd, D & Ellison, N 2007, ‘Social Network Sites: Definition, History,
and Scholarship’, Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, vol.13, no.1, pp210-230.

Harrision, T & Barthel, B 2009, ‘Wielding new media in Web 2.0: exploring the history of engagement with the collaborative construction of media products’, New Media & Society, vol.11, no.1-2, pp155-178, accessed 24/8/2009, http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1-2/155

Miners, Z 2009, ‘Twitter Takes a Trip to College; Students and professors use the micro-blogging service to communicate inside and outside the classroom’, US News & World Report Online, accessed 24/8/2009, http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.uow.edu.au/itx/infomark.do?contentSet=IAC-Documents&docType=IAC&type=retrieve&tabID=T001&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=uow&version=1.0&searchType=BasicSearchForm&source=library&docId=A201024328&Z3950=1

Moore, C 2009, DIGC 101 ‘Week 1 Lecture’, lectures notes, accessed 24/8/2009, http://www.scribd.com/moorenet

Moore, C 2009, DIGC 101 ‘Week 2 Lecture’, lectures notes, accessed 24/8/2009, http://www.scribd.com/moorenet

Moore, C 2009, DIGC 101 ‘Week 5 Lecture’, lectures notes, accessed 26/8/2009, http://www.scribd.com/moorenet

Murray, S 2008, ‘Digital Images, Photo-Sharing, and Our Shifting Notions of Everyday Aesthetics’, Journal of Visual Culture, vol.28, pp147-163, accessed 24/8/2009, http://vcu.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/7/2/147

Southern Cross Tattoo on MySpace Music 2009, accessed 24/8/2009, http://www.myspace.com/southerncrosstattoo

Suhr, H 2009, ‘Underpinning the paradoxes in the artistic fields of MySpace: the problematization of values and popularity in convergence culture’, New Media & Society, vol.11, no.1-2, pp179-198, accessed 24/8/2009, http://nms.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/11/1-2/179

Tufekci, Z 2008, ‘Can You See Me Now? Audience and Disclosure Regulation in Online Social Network Sites’, Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society, vol.28, no.30, pp20-36, accessed 24/8/2009, http://bst.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/1/20

Warschauer, M & Grimes, D 2007, ‘Audience, Authorship and Artefact; The Emergent Semiotics of Web 2.0’, Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, vol.27, pp1-23.

Whelan, A 2009, DIGC 101 ‘Week 3 Lecture’, lectures notes, accessed 26/8/2009, http://www.scribd.com/moorenet