It is with a little sadness that I write my final entry in this blog for this course. I have enjoyed reading and responding to the blogs written by my colleagues. The breadth of topics and intriguing insights in the blogs allowed me to broaden my perspective on technology education, educational philosophy, and current trends in education. This course has enlightened my awareness of many issues in technology education!
In reviewing my entries in this blog I realize that I have learned a lot; not only in this course, but in the entire Masters of Education program. This is one of my final courses in this program. As I read through my blog entries again, I noticed I referred often to the diverse courses I completed in the program: philosophy, curriculum theory, learning theory, educational administration theory. The Masters program has allowed me to gain an understanding of many new facets of education that I had not known about previously. It is a great program that allows educators to see a bigger picture of education outside their classroom and school walls.
One key reflection for me is how my blog entries represent my evolving philosophy of technology education. I attempted to carefully craft each blog entry to represent not only a reflection of class topics, but also an application of those topics into other tangents. I related Guy Madden’s “My Winnipeg” to the school trend of replacing chalk boards with SMART boards. I elaborated on Heidegger’s references to ancient Greek philosophy. I applied Denis’ presentation about plagiarism to current trends in the music industry: digital sampling, “turn table-ists”, and video mash-up’s. In writing about Sid Davis’ safety video for children, I compared his idealogy to a recently published book “50 dangerous things you should let your children do” by Giver Tulley and Julie Spiegler. I introduced the class to concepts such as the “Creepy Treehouse”, Apple’s earlier failed attempt at tablet computing (the Apple Newton), and referenced great thinkers such as Marshall McLuhan. I attempted to bridge the ideas of past educational theorists with current trends and topics in educational technology. I hope my classmates found my blog informative and thought provoking.
I attempted in each of my posts to share different insights and extensions of ideas from the class presentations and discussions. I commented on every other student’s blog, writing feedback and providing alternative perspectives on the topics written by my colleagues. It was a privilege to share ideas with the critical thinkers in this course! I learned much from every other student’s blog.
Lastly, I want write a quick note of thanks to all the other students in this class, and Denis, for our lively discussions in class, and our lively online discussions on the blogs. It has been a pleasure and a treat for me to collaborate with such a great group of people!
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Monday, April 5, 2010
Failures from the past warn of mistakes in the future
The TED talks from last week’s class proved to be informative and thought provoking.
Lana’s presentation about holographic imagery led me to thinking about current trends in entertainment technology. 3D televisions are currently being sold in many electronic stores. Nintendo recently announced its upcoming “Nintendo 3DS”, a hand-held gaming device that will track users' eye movements to create a three dimensional image. What is the need that is driving these new technologies? Are holograms and three dimensional television our first steps towards new forms of media that will revolutionize communication and technology? Or are these technologies mere distractions that will ultimately fail?
In 1995 Nintendo released its much anticipated “Virtual Boy”, a handheld gaming device that would immerse users in a virtual three dimensional world. This product failed to attract an audience. One video game historian wrote that the Virtual Boy “remains a warning to the folly of ‘cutting edge’ technology, and proves that even the best get it badly wrong sometimes.”
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/DS/History+of+Nintendo/feature.asp?c=11512
In 1975, the electronics company Sony began selling an innovative and groundbreaking product, the Sony Betamax: a machine that could record television programming onto small portable tapes. Despite its cutting edge technology, it failed to attract customers as well as the competing and arguably inferior format of VHS.
The Sony Betamax and the Nintendo Virtual Boy are case studies of how, sometimes, cutting edge technology fails to “live up to the hype.” Technology company Apple is not immune to this problem. In 1993, Apple released a portable, tablet-style computer called the Apple Newton. This product was one of the first “personal digital assistants” that recognized users’ handwriting, and assisted with various “apps” such as the calendar, note-taking, calculator, and sketch pad. Despite being sold for six years, the product failed to attract a large audience, and the Newton division of Apple was disbanded after discontinuing this product.
The failures of these three technologies, Betamax, Virtual Boy, and Apple Newton, provide cautionary tales for educators. Decisions by educators should always be driven by sound research, empirical data, and a strong foundation of pedagogical theory. And yet, in 2010 it seems that many educational decisions are based less on research and pedagogical theory, and more on hype of untested and unproven “ground breaking” technologies. As a case in point, Seton Hill University in Greensburg Pennsylvania recently made headlines around the world when it announced it would be giving each of its students a free Apple iPad. Is this a great decision for Seton Hill students? Only time will tell.
But history has shown us that sometimes, new technologies fail to live up to unrealistically high expectations. The impulse shopper with a credit card can be forgiven for making uninformed purchases based on hype. Educators should always be more diligent in researching and reflecting on the best practices of incorporating technologies into sound pedagogical practices.
Lana’s presentation about holographic imagery led me to thinking about current trends in entertainment technology. 3D televisions are currently being sold in many electronic stores. Nintendo recently announced its upcoming “Nintendo 3DS”, a hand-held gaming device that will track users' eye movements to create a three dimensional image. What is the need that is driving these new technologies? Are holograms and three dimensional television our first steps towards new forms of media that will revolutionize communication and technology? Or are these technologies mere distractions that will ultimately fail?
In 1995 Nintendo released its much anticipated “Virtual Boy”, a handheld gaming device that would immerse users in a virtual three dimensional world. This product failed to attract an audience. One video game historian wrote that the Virtual Boy “remains a warning to the folly of ‘cutting edge’ technology, and proves that even the best get it badly wrong sometimes.”
http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/DS/History+of+Nintendo/feature.asp?c=11512
In 1975, the electronics company Sony began selling an innovative and groundbreaking product, the Sony Betamax: a machine that could record television programming onto small portable tapes. Despite its cutting edge technology, it failed to attract customers as well as the competing and arguably inferior format of VHS.
The Sony Betamax and the Nintendo Virtual Boy are case studies of how, sometimes, cutting edge technology fails to “live up to the hype.” Technology company Apple is not immune to this problem. In 1993, Apple released a portable, tablet-style computer called the Apple Newton. This product was one of the first “personal digital assistants” that recognized users’ handwriting, and assisted with various “apps” such as the calendar, note-taking, calculator, and sketch pad. Despite being sold for six years, the product failed to attract a large audience, and the Newton division of Apple was disbanded after discontinuing this product.
The failures of these three technologies, Betamax, Virtual Boy, and Apple Newton, provide cautionary tales for educators. Decisions by educators should always be driven by sound research, empirical data, and a strong foundation of pedagogical theory. And yet, in 2010 it seems that many educational decisions are based less on research and pedagogical theory, and more on hype of untested and unproven “ground breaking” technologies. As a case in point, Seton Hill University in Greensburg Pennsylvania recently made headlines around the world when it announced it would be giving each of its students a free Apple iPad. Is this a great decision for Seton Hill students? Only time will tell.
But history has shown us that sometimes, new technologies fail to live up to unrealistically high expectations. The impulse shopper with a credit card can be forgiven for making uninformed purchases based on hype. Educators should always be more diligent in researching and reflecting on the best practices of incorporating technologies into sound pedagogical practices.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
eLearning and Facebook: pedagogical issues
It was unfortunate that my school’s parent-teacher interviews were scheduled last Thursday evening. I missed Lana’s presentation on the Kaiser report, and half of Roman’s report on e-learning.
At the end of Roman’s presentation, the class had a great discussion about the use of e-learning tools. I mentioned the term “creepy treehouse”; a term used to describe how the use of social networking sites can backfire on professors and teachers. Indeed, students often reject the notion of being “forced” to use social networking sites for school, when these sites were intended to be used freely for recreation/fun. Here is an explanation by Jared Stein from Utah Valley University:
in the field of educational technology a creepy treehouse is an institutionally controlled technology/tool that emulates or mimics pre-existing technologies or tools that may already be in use by the learners, or by learners’ peer groups. Though such systems may be seen as innovative or problem-solving to the institution, they may repulse some users who see them as infringement on the sanctity of their peer groups, or as having the potential for institutional violations of their privacy, liberty, ownership, or creativity. Some users may simply object to the influence of the institution.
Teachers and professors who require students to follow them on Twitter, Facebook, Wiki’s, MySpace, or other social networking sites may think they are being innovative and creative. In reality, they may be creating an artificial version of the pre-existing technology. Facebook, for example, loses all its fun if teachers require you to add them as your friends. The popularity of Facebook stems from providing users the ability to control and manage their social circles. Likewise, the appeal of Twitter is having the ability to control who you follow, and who follows your tweets. This appeal is lost when a teacher requires you to read their tweets. It is no longer really Twitter. It is required homework.
How then can teachers utilize such technology tools that do not create a “creepy treehouse”?
Firstly, teachers must respect the privacy of students’ social lives. Do not require students to add you as their Facebook friend. Keep clear the professional boundaries that should exist between students and teachers. Secondly, if a teacher decides to use social networking such as a blog or Twitter page, use it the way it was intended to be used. Professional bloggers work very hard at ensuring their blogs are regularly updated with relevant and useful content. They do this because they know if their content is not relevant, they will quickly lose viewers. So too, teachers must ensure their blogs are relevant, useful, and constantly updated. And just like other bloggers, teachers cannot require people to view their blogs. If the blog is not compelling, why should students be forced to read it? Teachers should embrace the “free market” of the “Web 2.0” Internet: people will visit blogs and Twitter sites that are compelling, interesting, and fun. Make your blog or Twitter site optional for students. Focus on providing useful content that can enhance your classroom teaching.
If there are course requirements that need to be shared online (such as eLearning courses), use educational software like Moodle, Nicenet, or FirstClass. These programs were specifically designed for educational use. They do not pretend to be social networking sites like Facebook or MySpace. Using educational software like these ones helps students differentiate their school work from their socializing. These software also helps clearly define the role of the teacher and the students.
Respect students’ private lives, separate schoolwork from online socializing, and avoid creating your own creepy treehouse.
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
The Power of Melody
Denis’ observations of the history of the Russian national anthem piqued my interest.
My introduction to the anthem was my childhood days of watching the movie Rocky IV, where the famous pugilist travels to Moscow to battle the unbeatable Ivan Drago. In a pivotal scene of the movie, the Russian national anthem is played in its entirety. I remember my twelve-year-old self thinking, “I have no idea what the words mean, but the melody is very cool!” It is a tune that I found myself humming often after watching the movie.
So it is interesting that the non-communist Russia is reusing the melody of the old anthem, with reworded lyrics. Most people who do not speak Russian would never notice the difference. I listened to the new lyrics and could not tell any difference from my memory of the original lyrics. Had Denis not pointed it out, I would have assumed the new lyrics were the original lyrics. Though the lyrics had faded in my memory, the melody of the song was unmistakable.
Such is the way with human memories. We remember tunes, but the small details of words slowly dissolve away: hence the reason why I only remember the first line to “Auld Lang Syne” and hum the rest of the tune. When I think of my last vacation to Mexico, I remember the warm sun, the lavish food, and frolicking at the beach. The small details of waiting for the flight, security checks at the airport, and a crying baby on the plane: all these details seem to drift away while the main melody remains.
Music lingers in people’s memories, evoking strong feelings from the past. As such, music is a powerful aid in marketing and advertising. Businesses work very hard at creating a positive association between their logo or product, and a popular tune or melody. My first memory of the song “Mack the Knife” was not of Frank Sinatra singing. Rather, I remember this song used in a McDonald’s commercial, which used the same tune but changed the original lyrics “It’s Mack the Knife!” to “It’s Mac tonight!”
The music industry is putting tremendous effort in trying to control their music content online, as many people are using copyrighted music as background music in their homemade Youtube videos. There are many silent videos on Youtube with the message, “this video contained an audio track that has not been authorized by all copyright holders”. Youtube has implemented an automated system that tracks what it considers copyrighted, and automatically deletes the audio. This move has angered many users of Youtube, here is an example:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/14/youtube-full-of-creepy-soundless-music-videos/
Though this move may be considered drastic or heavy-handed, it suggests the power the common person now has as a creator of online content. One person can create a Youtube video with a copyrighted song and associate themselves, their logo, message, or product to that song. Viewers of the video, who may have never heard the song before, would associate the song to the images in the video. This may not be in the best interest of the musician who, for example, did not want to endorse an inappropriate product on a Youtube advertisement.
Educators are caught in the middle of this copyright war. Does a phys-ed teacher require public performance rights to play cd music while the students are running laps in the gym? Many schools have “end of year slideshows”; a collection of photographs from the past school year accompanied by pop music. Are these public performances an infringement of copyright? Probably. Are teachers ethically obliged to respect copyright? Most likely.
What is the solution? I always tell my students the best way to avoid any copyright issues and ethical ambiguity is to record their own music for their projects. Students can use Audacity, a free multi-track audio recording program. I have guided students in recording classical music, rap, group poems, radio plays, movie sound tracks, and sound effects using a collection of free software and inexpensive musical instruments. It is amazing to see the pride students take in listening to their own recorded music.
Music is a powerful medium that is universal in its ability to evoke memories and stir emotions. Give students the chance to use this powerful medium to demonstrate their learning.
My introduction to the anthem was my childhood days of watching the movie Rocky IV, where the famous pugilist travels to Moscow to battle the unbeatable Ivan Drago. In a pivotal scene of the movie, the Russian national anthem is played in its entirety. I remember my twelve-year-old self thinking, “I have no idea what the words mean, but the melody is very cool!” It is a tune that I found myself humming often after watching the movie.
So it is interesting that the non-communist Russia is reusing the melody of the old anthem, with reworded lyrics. Most people who do not speak Russian would never notice the difference. I listened to the new lyrics and could not tell any difference from my memory of the original lyrics. Had Denis not pointed it out, I would have assumed the new lyrics were the original lyrics. Though the lyrics had faded in my memory, the melody of the song was unmistakable.
Such is the way with human memories. We remember tunes, but the small details of words slowly dissolve away: hence the reason why I only remember the first line to “Auld Lang Syne” and hum the rest of the tune. When I think of my last vacation to Mexico, I remember the warm sun, the lavish food, and frolicking at the beach. The small details of waiting for the flight, security checks at the airport, and a crying baby on the plane: all these details seem to drift away while the main melody remains.
Music lingers in people’s memories, evoking strong feelings from the past. As such, music is a powerful aid in marketing and advertising. Businesses work very hard at creating a positive association between their logo or product, and a popular tune or melody. My first memory of the song “Mack the Knife” was not of Frank Sinatra singing. Rather, I remember this song used in a McDonald’s commercial, which used the same tune but changed the original lyrics “It’s Mack the Knife!” to “It’s Mac tonight!”
The music industry is putting tremendous effort in trying to control their music content online, as many people are using copyrighted music as background music in their homemade Youtube videos. There are many silent videos on Youtube with the message, “this video contained an audio track that has not been authorized by all copyright holders”. Youtube has implemented an automated system that tracks what it considers copyrighted, and automatically deletes the audio. This move has angered many users of Youtube, here is an example:
http://techcrunch.com/2009/01/14/youtube-full-of-creepy-soundless-music-videos/
Though this move may be considered drastic or heavy-handed, it suggests the power the common person now has as a creator of online content. One person can create a Youtube video with a copyrighted song and associate themselves, their logo, message, or product to that song. Viewers of the video, who may have never heard the song before, would associate the song to the images in the video. This may not be in the best interest of the musician who, for example, did not want to endorse an inappropriate product on a Youtube advertisement.
Educators are caught in the middle of this copyright war. Does a phys-ed teacher require public performance rights to play cd music while the students are running laps in the gym? Many schools have “end of year slideshows”; a collection of photographs from the past school year accompanied by pop music. Are these public performances an infringement of copyright? Probably. Are teachers ethically obliged to respect copyright? Most likely.
What is the solution? I always tell my students the best way to avoid any copyright issues and ethical ambiguity is to record their own music for their projects. Students can use Audacity, a free multi-track audio recording program. I have guided students in recording classical music, rap, group poems, radio plays, movie sound tracks, and sound effects using a collection of free software and inexpensive musical instruments. It is amazing to see the pride students take in listening to their own recorded music.
Music is a powerful medium that is universal in its ability to evoke memories and stir emotions. Give students the chance to use this powerful medium to demonstrate their learning.
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Danger!
As I watched Sid Davis’ film about child safety, I wondered about the values it portrays.
The world is dangerous.
Always be careful.
Taking risks leads to serious injuries.
Hospitals are scary and should be avoided.
I investigated the work of Sid Davis and discovered he created several films targeted at a young audience, with similar themes of the potential dangers in the world, whether it is illegal drugs, strangers, scissors, or canoeing. The film reminded me of the"shock" videos that were shown in my drivers' education classes in high school: film clips of the horrors that come from driving too fast, too recklessly, or too drunk.
I started to wonder about how children today are inundated with safety messages. One series of television commercials constantly reminds kids to "Stay alert, stay safe!"; Another series of commercials by the War Amps Society warns kids about the dangers of losing limbs from farm equipment,lawn mowers, and other items found in or near the home. Teaching children safety has migrated into the area of online safety. Don’t talk to strangers. Don’t visit strange websites. Never post personal information online. Never click on an advertisement. Never open a file attachment.
All of this leads to a paranoia similar to the Sid Davis’ movie: there is danger everywhere, whether it is outside, online, or in your own house.
In a recent radio show by Laura Catherine Schlessinger, an advice talk show host, she chastised parents for being overprotective of children and creating an unnecessary fear of the world. Her argument: Young children rely on their parents to keep them safe from predators. So, instead of focusing on constantly telling your child, “Never talk to strangers,” she advises that parents instead focus on ensuring they are supervising their children adequately. Raise your children to be self confident and trusting of the greater good in the world, rather than teach them to be fearful, mistrusting, and paranoid. It is the parent's job to keep kids safe. It is the kid's job to believe the world is a safe place to live.
Dr. Laura's message fits with a recent launch of a book, “50 dangerous things you should let your children do.” The authors, Giver Tulley and Julie Spiegler, were angered at the overprotective state of parenting and picked fifty activities that parents can do with their children. All fifty experiences, the author points out, are meant to be led by a parent with their children. All fifty activities have potential risks and must be done with adult supervision. The goal of the book is to lead readers in creating a sense of wonder, investigate scientific principles, and have some excitement while learning with parents. And, stop worrying so much about danger and have some fun!
Parent involvement and supervision are the key elements to children's safety, whether it is in the physical world or the online world. Parents cannot rely on content filters, firewalls, and other digital tools that are ultimately ineffective in guaranteeing safety. Parents must sit with their children as they explore the potential learning resources online: Learn with your kids! Letting children “play” on the internet, unattended and unsupervised, is akin to the scene in Sid Davis’ movie where a group of unsupervised young boys are starting a fire beside an unlocked garage containing a gas can. Where are those boys' parents?
Children need to know that the world they live in is essentially good. Yes, there are dangers, but there are wonderful lessons that can be discovered from taking risks and trying new things. The world, and the internet, are fascinating places when children explore together with their parents.
The world is dangerous.
Always be careful.
Taking risks leads to serious injuries.
Hospitals are scary and should be avoided.
I investigated the work of Sid Davis and discovered he created several films targeted at a young audience, with similar themes of the potential dangers in the world, whether it is illegal drugs, strangers, scissors, or canoeing. The film reminded me of the"shock" videos that were shown in my drivers' education classes in high school: film clips of the horrors that come from driving too fast, too recklessly, or too drunk.
I started to wonder about how children today are inundated with safety messages. One series of television commercials constantly reminds kids to "Stay alert, stay safe!"; Another series of commercials by the War Amps Society warns kids about the dangers of losing limbs from farm equipment,lawn mowers, and other items found in or near the home. Teaching children safety has migrated into the area of online safety. Don’t talk to strangers. Don’t visit strange websites. Never post personal information online. Never click on an advertisement. Never open a file attachment.
All of this leads to a paranoia similar to the Sid Davis’ movie: there is danger everywhere, whether it is outside, online, or in your own house.
In a recent radio show by Laura Catherine Schlessinger, an advice talk show host, she chastised parents for being overprotective of children and creating an unnecessary fear of the world. Her argument: Young children rely on their parents to keep them safe from predators. So, instead of focusing on constantly telling your child, “Never talk to strangers,” she advises that parents instead focus on ensuring they are supervising their children adequately. Raise your children to be self confident and trusting of the greater good in the world, rather than teach them to be fearful, mistrusting, and paranoid. It is the parent's job to keep kids safe. It is the kid's job to believe the world is a safe place to live.
Dr. Laura's message fits with a recent launch of a book, “50 dangerous things you should let your children do.” The authors, Giver Tulley and Julie Spiegler, were angered at the overprotective state of parenting and picked fifty activities that parents can do with their children. All fifty experiences, the author points out, are meant to be led by a parent with their children. All fifty activities have potential risks and must be done with adult supervision. The goal of the book is to lead readers in creating a sense of wonder, investigate scientific principles, and have some excitement while learning with parents. And, stop worrying so much about danger and have some fun!
Parent involvement and supervision are the key elements to children's safety, whether it is in the physical world or the online world. Parents cannot rely on content filters, firewalls, and other digital tools that are ultimately ineffective in guaranteeing safety. Parents must sit with their children as they explore the potential learning resources online: Learn with your kids! Letting children “play” on the internet, unattended and unsupervised, is akin to the scene in Sid Davis’ movie where a group of unsupervised young boys are starting a fire beside an unlocked garage containing a gas can. Where are those boys' parents?
Children need to know that the world they live in is essentially good. Yes, there are dangers, but there are wonderful lessons that can be discovered from taking risks and trying new things. The world, and the internet, are fascinating places when children explore together with their parents.
Monday, February 15, 2010
"Composers shouldn't think too much - it interferes with their plagiarism."
I "borrowed" the quote in my title from Howard Dietz, a New York/Broadway lyricist.
In this week’s presentation, Dr. Hlynka discussed issues regarding plagiarism, and how this is not a problem unique to the twenty-first century. He cited the melody of the Isreali song Hatikvah, and how it parallels many other songs such as “”Baa Baa Black sheep”, the ABC song, and others.
Indeed, music has always been a grey area regarding plagiarism. There are a finite number of chord progressions that can be used with the common chromatic scale used in most popular music. Many songs share the same chord structure such as the I-IV-V progression in the Beatles “Twist and Shout” and Ritchie Valens’ “La Bamba.” Borrowing musical ideas is part of the evolution of music. Elvis Presley borrowed heavily from American southern blues music, which borrowed heavily from gospel/spiritual music, which borrowed from earlier Christian hymns.
But… emerging technologies have continually added new layers to the debate of what is plagiarism, and what is simply borrowing a musical idea. In the 1980’s, sampling technology allowed artists to take audio snippets from one song, to incorporate into a new song. The hip hop group the Beastie Boys created the backbeats to their rap album “Licensed to Ill” from audio samples taken from a variety of different albums. This sampling technique had led to an entirely new genre of “scratch artists” or “turntable-ists”. These musicians take standard LP’s or CD’s, record a sample from one song, mix it with a drum beat of another song, and “scratch” in different audio effects to create an entirely new song. The vinyl record players and analog crossfaders used in the 1980’s has been replaced with all-digital equipment that utilize MP3 music files, and digital audio effects. And instead of the artist going to used-record stores to find vinyl records to “scratch”, artists can now shop on iTunes or other online sources of music.
This art form raises new issues of musical plagiarism, because it is not just a musical idea that is being imitated; the scratch artist uses the actual singing, drum beat, or guitar-riff that was played and recorded earlier by another artist. This borrowing of other musicians’ recordings is getting more prevalent, as the hardware once needed for this (sampling recorders, cross faders, vinyl record players) is now replaced with inexpensive computer software.
The art form has evolved from audio sampling to video sampling, with video “mash-ups” now a popular genre of video on Youtube. NHL hockey, realizing the popularity of this activity, decided to allow fans to make their own mashup NHL videos by providing video clips and an online forum for fans to share their favourite mashups: http://mashup.projects.fm/
All of this blurs the line of what is genuine art and what is plagiarism. It also blurs the line of copyright. If I take a copyrighted song and resample it, change its tempo, add other sounds, and alter it so much that it no longer resembles the original song, is it plagiarism? Or is this musical process similar to classical composers from generations ago, who “sampled” other composers’ ideas in their melodies to create “new” music.
Plagiarism is not a new idea. But technology is making it much easier to do. And, when it is so commonly practiced, is plagiarism becoming a new form of art?
In this week’s presentation, Dr. Hlynka discussed issues regarding plagiarism, and how this is not a problem unique to the twenty-first century. He cited the melody of the Isreali song Hatikvah, and how it parallels many other songs such as “”Baa Baa Black sheep”, the ABC song, and others.
Indeed, music has always been a grey area regarding plagiarism. There are a finite number of chord progressions that can be used with the common chromatic scale used in most popular music. Many songs share the same chord structure such as the I-IV-V progression in the Beatles “Twist and Shout” and Ritchie Valens’ “La Bamba.” Borrowing musical ideas is part of the evolution of music. Elvis Presley borrowed heavily from American southern blues music, which borrowed heavily from gospel/spiritual music, which borrowed from earlier Christian hymns.
But… emerging technologies have continually added new layers to the debate of what is plagiarism, and what is simply borrowing a musical idea. In the 1980’s, sampling technology allowed artists to take audio snippets from one song, to incorporate into a new song. The hip hop group the Beastie Boys created the backbeats to their rap album “Licensed to Ill” from audio samples taken from a variety of different albums. This sampling technique had led to an entirely new genre of “scratch artists” or “turntable-ists”. These musicians take standard LP’s or CD’s, record a sample from one song, mix it with a drum beat of another song, and “scratch” in different audio effects to create an entirely new song. The vinyl record players and analog crossfaders used in the 1980’s has been replaced with all-digital equipment that utilize MP3 music files, and digital audio effects. And instead of the artist going to used-record stores to find vinyl records to “scratch”, artists can now shop on iTunes or other online sources of music.
This art form raises new issues of musical plagiarism, because it is not just a musical idea that is being imitated; the scratch artist uses the actual singing, drum beat, or guitar-riff that was played and recorded earlier by another artist. This borrowing of other musicians’ recordings is getting more prevalent, as the hardware once needed for this (sampling recorders, cross faders, vinyl record players) is now replaced with inexpensive computer software.
The art form has evolved from audio sampling to video sampling, with video “mash-ups” now a popular genre of video on Youtube. NHL hockey, realizing the popularity of this activity, decided to allow fans to make their own mashup NHL videos by providing video clips and an online forum for fans to share their favourite mashups: http://mashup.projects.fm/
All of this blurs the line of what is genuine art and what is plagiarism. It also blurs the line of copyright. If I take a copyrighted song and resample it, change its tempo, add other sounds, and alter it so much that it no longer resembles the original song, is it plagiarism? Or is this musical process similar to classical composers from generations ago, who “sampled” other composers’ ideas in their melodies to create “new” music.
Plagiarism is not a new idea. But technology is making it much easier to do. And, when it is so commonly practiced, is plagiarism becoming a new form of art?
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
the essential question about essense
Martin Heidegger’s book about the essence of technology got me thinking about my previous coursework in Western philosophy and philosophy of education. He referred throughout the book to the teachings of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle in his examination of the role of technology in society.
Plato viewed humans as rational beings and he posited that it is through rational thought that one can attain a fuller understanding of the truth. The process in discovering the truth leads to greater morality. Aristotle built upon the teachings of Plato and Socrates by using rational logic and deduction to classify and organize animals and plants according to species and genealogy. It is this rational way of thinking that led to the scientific method of inquiry, and modern day biology.
Heidegger explained that humans’ attempts at classifying and structuring allow us to make sense of the world. But, to discover the reality of the world, humans must be willing to challenge and question preconceptions. Reflection leads to questioning, questioning leads to new understandings, and the revealing of truth.
As an example, if we assume that technology is a tool, this presumes that a tool can be mastered and controlled. To fully understand the essence of technology, we have to be willing to question this assumption, which may be limiting our understanding of technology’s essence or destiny. Perhaps technology is more than a mere tool.
The essential problem that Heidegger examines is: What is the essence of technology? Does it have innate potential for goodness, in the same way as humans, nature? If humans are “created in God’s image”, and technology is a reflection of human traits, does technology therefore also reflect God’s image? Does technology lead to perfection/truth? Does technology have a destiny, in the same way that people are destined to be good, moral people if properly guided and nurtured? Or is technology a distraction from the truth, like false shadows that slaves see in Plato’s cave?
Heidegger forces us to consider the current trends in technology, and imagine what the world will be like if these trends continue for years or decades. If technology continues to get smaller and cheaper, what will it look like in ten years? Will cellphones and GPS tracking devices incorporate nano technology to be implanted into human’s brains? Will all people have equal access to affordable technology, thereby promoting a just democracy not restricted by social or economic status? Or will technology continue to divide the “haves” from the “have nots”, where the rich will continue to marvel at their latest iPhones, while the poor will have to settle for prepaid bulky cellphones and quarter-eating pay phones. (iPhone owners: Do you know how much a call costs from a pay-phone? I bet you don’t! It’s not a dime anymore.)
Heidegger challenges us to consider the question: What is the end point of these trends of technology? What will the essence of technology reveal itself to be? Will technology be our saving grace, by promoting democracy through enhanced communication and equal access to information for all peoples? Or will technology lead to the demise of societal moral norms and literacy skills? Heidegger provides no answers, he merely states the questions that lead to more questions.
Heidegger ended his book with a positive message. Human’s have the unique ability to question the status quo, change trends, and create new possibilities. This, according to Heidegger, will be our saving grace. Our critical thinking skills, our ability to learn from past mistakes, our ability to try new ideas will always allow us to control our own destiny. We control our own destiny… if we have the clairvoyance that is attained from learning from past mistakes.
Plato viewed humans as rational beings and he posited that it is through rational thought that one can attain a fuller understanding of the truth. The process in discovering the truth leads to greater morality. Aristotle built upon the teachings of Plato and Socrates by using rational logic and deduction to classify and organize animals and plants according to species and genealogy. It is this rational way of thinking that led to the scientific method of inquiry, and modern day biology.
Heidegger explained that humans’ attempts at classifying and structuring allow us to make sense of the world. But, to discover the reality of the world, humans must be willing to challenge and question preconceptions. Reflection leads to questioning, questioning leads to new understandings, and the revealing of truth.
As an example, if we assume that technology is a tool, this presumes that a tool can be mastered and controlled. To fully understand the essence of technology, we have to be willing to question this assumption, which may be limiting our understanding of technology’s essence or destiny. Perhaps technology is more than a mere tool.
The essential problem that Heidegger examines is: What is the essence of technology? Does it have innate potential for goodness, in the same way as humans, nature? If humans are “created in God’s image”, and technology is a reflection of human traits, does technology therefore also reflect God’s image? Does technology lead to perfection/truth? Does technology have a destiny, in the same way that people are destined to be good, moral people if properly guided and nurtured? Or is technology a distraction from the truth, like false shadows that slaves see in Plato’s cave?
Heidegger forces us to consider the current trends in technology, and imagine what the world will be like if these trends continue for years or decades. If technology continues to get smaller and cheaper, what will it look like in ten years? Will cellphones and GPS tracking devices incorporate nano technology to be implanted into human’s brains? Will all people have equal access to affordable technology, thereby promoting a just democracy not restricted by social or economic status? Or will technology continue to divide the “haves” from the “have nots”, where the rich will continue to marvel at their latest iPhones, while the poor will have to settle for prepaid bulky cellphones and quarter-eating pay phones. (iPhone owners: Do you know how much a call costs from a pay-phone? I bet you don’t! It’s not a dime anymore.)
Heidegger challenges us to consider the question: What is the end point of these trends of technology? What will the essence of technology reveal itself to be? Will technology be our saving grace, by promoting democracy through enhanced communication and equal access to information for all peoples? Or will technology lead to the demise of societal moral norms and literacy skills? Heidegger provides no answers, he merely states the questions that lead to more questions.
Heidegger ended his book with a positive message. Human’s have the unique ability to question the status quo, change trends, and create new possibilities. This, according to Heidegger, will be our saving grace. Our critical thinking skills, our ability to learn from past mistakes, our ability to try new ideas will always allow us to control our own destiny. We control our own destiny… if we have the clairvoyance that is attained from learning from past mistakes.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)