For Nev Schulman, one of the creators of the documentary Catfish, the whole experience began innocently enough. he had been contacted by an 8-year old girl named Abby via the Internet, requesting permission to paint one of his photographs she had seen in a newspaper. This is where Nev and Abby's relationship began. He continued to send photographs for her to paint.
Nev then began to form relationships with Abby's family, becoming Facebook friends with Abby's mother Angela, and Abby's sister, Megan. This is where the real drama started.
Nev and Megan's affair started over the Internet, eventually graduating to text messaging and phone calls. It seemed normal enough to Nev. Megan, a musician, would send her covers of songs to Nev so he could listen to them. But, when Nev was able to find the same songs on YouTube, he realized they were clearly not sung by Megan. Something was clearly wrong.
To make a long story short, Nev was deceived by Angela, Abby's mother. Abby was just a normal 8-year old girl, with basic artistic abilities. The whole family had not seen Megan in many years, as she did not keep in contact anymore. Angela herself was the artist, and was also the one pretending to be Megan, therefore having an odd love affair with Nev. She had created Megan's Facebook page as well as all of the friends "Megan" had on Facebook. She went to extreme odds just so Nev would believe her.
Stated in a review of Catfish, It's when the boys get to Michigan that the movie goes from being a clumsily constructed video diary to a fascinating exploration of the deceptions—of self and others—made possible by the Internet.
The whole documentary shows how truly anonymous the Internet can be. Fake accounts can be created by anybody at anytime, unknowingly to other people. It just shows how careful we have to be with who we talk to, and who can view our information.
I found Catfish very interesting though. At first, I thought it would just be about the relationship between a photographer from New York and an 8-year old painter from Michigan. But, as the documentary unraveled, lots of twists emerged. Nev and his friends trip to Michigan is what really made the documentary.
I'm sure there are a number of people who have experiences like this. Maybe not as extreme, but it could happen to anyone.
Here's the movie trailer.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Tuesday, April 19, 2011
Exit Through the Gift Shop
What does the anonymity of Banksy say to the audience and to the ideas behind his work?
The fact that British graffiti artist Banksy's true identity is still unknown blows my mind. This man has been creating street art for many many years; how is that even possible? His work captures the attention of many, including news channels, yet no one knows who he truly is.
It is quite a refreshing thought though, that he is still anonymous. It shows how unimportant the fame is to him. All he wants to do is get his message across, in as many cities as he can. It doesn't seem to be all about the money.
Though Exit Through the Gift Shop does show that Banksy has held art shows, and he does gain money and fame for his work, his choice to remain anonymous just shows he wants to stay out of the limelight. However, this could be due to the fact that graffiti is illegal.
Thierry first heard of Banksy through other street artists, and saw on news channels how he was adding his work to museums. His outlandish portraits and paintings and sculptures gained much attention. I'm not exactly positive, but adding your artwork to museums that house other art worth possibly millions of dollars does not seem like it would fly with the law. Maybe this is a major reason as to why he chooses to remain anonymous.
In an article in Time Magazine written in 2008, journalist Alex Altman claimed he found the true identity of the unknown Banksy. Altman claimed Banksy was actually Robin Gunningham, a thirty-four year old native of Bristol, England. The artist's agent denied the fact that one picture, of which Altman based his assumption off of, could tell Banksy's true identity.
Quoted from the article, "Anything that's ever bee written about him centers around the anonymity -- that he's this Batman, this cut figure." Though I don't fully believe Altman's story, what would happen if Banksy's identity were truly discovered? His art would lose meaning, he would be known by a face more than what his art depicts.
As we talked about in class, when you see a piece of art by itself, you are able to take your own perspective on it, and see it for what it really is. But, when the artist stands next to his or her piece of art, there is more focus on the person who created the piece than the actual piece itself. It takes away from the meaning behind the work.
However, I don't think Banksy has to worry much about his identity being known. In another article by the same magazine, they identified Banksy by a totally different name then in the previous article: Robert Banks. For now, his anonymity is still intact, which I believe to be a good thing.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1825271,00.html#ixzz1K04yF2Vg
The fact that British graffiti artist Banksy's true identity is still unknown blows my mind. This man has been creating street art for many many years; how is that even possible? His work captures the attention of many, including news channels, yet no one knows who he truly is.
It is quite a refreshing thought though, that he is still anonymous. It shows how unimportant the fame is to him. All he wants to do is get his message across, in as many cities as he can. It doesn't seem to be all about the money.
Though Exit Through the Gift Shop does show that Banksy has held art shows, and he does gain money and fame for his work, his choice to remain anonymous just shows he wants to stay out of the limelight. However, this could be due to the fact that graffiti is illegal.
Thierry first heard of Banksy through other street artists, and saw on news channels how he was adding his work to museums. His outlandish portraits and paintings and sculptures gained much attention. I'm not exactly positive, but adding your artwork to museums that house other art worth possibly millions of dollars does not seem like it would fly with the law. Maybe this is a major reason as to why he chooses to remain anonymous.
In an article in Time Magazine written in 2008, journalist Alex Altman claimed he found the true identity of the unknown Banksy. Altman claimed Banksy was actually Robin Gunningham, a thirty-four year old native of Bristol, England. The artist's agent denied the fact that one picture, of which Altman based his assumption off of, could tell Banksy's true identity.
Quoted from the article, "Anything that's ever bee written about him centers around the anonymity -- that he's this Batman, this cut figure." Though I don't fully believe Altman's story, what would happen if Banksy's identity were truly discovered? His art would lose meaning, he would be known by a face more than what his art depicts.
As we talked about in class, when you see a piece of art by itself, you are able to take your own perspective on it, and see it for what it really is. But, when the artist stands next to his or her piece of art, there is more focus on the person who created the piece than the actual piece itself. It takes away from the meaning behind the work.
However, I don't think Banksy has to worry much about his identity being known. In another article by the same magazine, they identified Banksy by a totally different name then in the previous article: Robert Banks. For now, his anonymity is still intact, which I believe to be a good thing.
Read more: http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1825271,00.html#ixzz1K04yF2Vg
Monday, April 18, 2011
Sunday, April 10, 2011
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Keen's "The Great Seduction"
1. How does Keen define Democratized media, and what are his main issues with this trend? use examples from the web in the form of links.
Keen defines democratized media as content that is generated by an Internet user, who may be just an average person. However, Keen has many issues with this trend. He feels as if people who have no credibility are taking over. This democratized media, Keen claims, is "disintermediating" the Internet, or getting rid of the middle man. This leads to a lack of quality; you can't trust anything anymore.
Such an example is wikipedia (www.wikipedia.org). Any Internet user can add information to this site, on any topic, whether it be true or false. This definitely backs up Keen's argument that people with no credibility are taking over.
2. Compare and contrast Keen's take on social media with Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?
The way they approach the topic of social media is different. Rushkoff is more a believer in the advancement of the Internet, while, obviously, Keen is not. In Rushkoff's documentary, he provides only a little of his own opinion, allowing us as the viewer to produce our own views on the topic. Keen is very specific in his argument that he does not like the advancement of the Internet.
As a journalism student, the advancement of the Internet scares me. The number of magazines and newspapers that actually print, instead of just appearing on the Internet, are drastically decreasing. What kind of job will I be able to get if there are no newspapers or magazines I can write for? Also, the increase in the amount of bloggers scares me too. These people have no schooling on journalism, and yet they report on different aspects of society like they do. It m akes me wonder, why am I getting schooling for something others do in their free time?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)