Catfish

Nev and his friends did not start filming Nev’s life because they thought that something big was going to happen. They simply started filming. When they learned of the child prodigy Nev was in communication with, it only made their filming more interesting. I don’t think that this documentary is a fake documentary, the way I feel Banksy’s documentary, Exit through the Giftshop, was, but I do think that Nev’s friends just happened to be extremely lucky in that they were able to capture this incredible story.

Angela’s betrayal does not concern me as much as I am concerned for her mental health. Clearly, this is a sad woman. Her life was so depressing that she only felt better by living as though she was someone else. This was not a random event that Angela pretended to be someone else just one time. Angela physically had to create each and every one of those fake profiles that she was using to talk to Nev for months at a time to try to fool him into thinking that she was who she said she was. I believe that she was using twelve profiles to convince him? I personally just find that to be someone who needs some help. Angela is a pathological liar, and I think that the magnitude of her deceit is warrant enough for her to speak to some kind of psychiatrist.

Angela lied about her daughter, Abby, being the one to paint all of the illustrations she was showing to Nev. Angela lied about being her daughter, Megan, while talking to Nev. She then lied and said that Megan was in an alcoholic facility. Angela lied and said that she had cancer. Angela lied to her husband and said that Nev was buying her artistry. Every time Angela spoke, she was lying. Even when she “came clean” with Nev, she lied. And for me, I believe that her lying about having cancer is the most despicable one of all. Cancer is a serious illness, and anyone who can treat it as cavalierly as to lying about it should be ashamed. I am disgusted that someone would pretend to be going through such a terrible ordeal to get sympathy from a stranger.

While my disgust is great, part of me truly does feel bad for Angela. It depresses me to know how bad some people’s lives are in this world, and how unhappy some people are without anyone ever knowing it. I am a fairly happy person myself, and it seems weird to me that people go every day hating their lives. I think Angela created this other world that she shared with Nev because she was disappointed in herself and the real world that she lived in. She needed an escape from the disappointments in her life. But even though I can find sympathy with someone who feels this way, I just can’t get over how the whole thing affects Nev. Not only was Nev being lied to about the paintings, but Nev had thought he was falling in love with Megan. Can you imagine the heartbreak that comes with finding out that the girl of your dreams is actually a married forty year old woman? Very creepy.

This just shows though how society has changed with the advancements in technology. Before the internet, there was no way that a woman could create this kind of lie easily. There could be phone conversations, but with Facebook showing pictures of the people you are talking to creates a trust between the two strangers. We feel that we know people because we are invited into their lives via Facebook before we’ve ever met them. Even with the first web, Web 1.0, this was not possible. With Web 2.0, anyone is able to upload any picture they want to and can call it their own. People are able to express themselves much more easily and strangers can be unified through their mutual interests. Nev and Angela would have never been so a part of each other’s lives if it weren’t for the internet.

With democratized media, Angela was able to be the photograph her paintings and put them on the internet to be shown to the public. She wrote that it was her daughter, a child, who had painted them and even posted pictures of Abby pretending to paint. A child who can paint so well will gain much more publicity than an older woman who can paint well, which is why I believe Angela lied about that. She knew that the only way people would want to see her paintings was if there was something special about them, and those kind of incredible artworks coming from a little girl would get a lot more attention than hers would. Democratized media makes this possible. Before the internet, a person could say that their child was an incredible artist, but it wouldn’t be anywhere near as publicized as it is today.

Sites like Facebook, MySpace, or any online dating site makes it possible for people like Angela to create fake personas to trick others into believing that they are someone who they are not. It was easy for Angela to make Nev believe that she was Megan because she was able to so easily make a fake profile in order to pretend to be someone else. The internet causes problems like this in society today because it is so easily accessible to every person. This is one of the most beneficial parts of the internet, because it is for the common people, but it is also one of its downfalls, because it is a place for those with bad intentions to roam. But, with any great advancement comes negative consequences as well. And I think that the benefits of the internet far outweigh its dangers.

People like Nev just need to use a bit more caution when it comes to people they meet on the internet. Sites like Facebook and MySpace try to protect its users, but it’s very difficult to keep every negative person out, so it’s up to the user to be careful with whomever they talk to. Online dating services are very protective of their clients by making everyone fill out lots of informational applications, but still every person should learn how to protect themselves. This article has some useful tips on protecting oneself online:

http://news.deviantart.com/article/54094/.

            Web 2.0 is an incredible thing, but it’s necessary to learn how to exercise caution while using it. It gives way for people like Angela to take advantage of unsuspecting people like Nev.

Exit Through the Giftshop

Some suggest that Banksy and Mister Brainwash are the same person. This is cannot be true. While it seems that MBW is smart enough to try to delude his audience into believing that he is crazy, there is no way that the man we see on screen bumbling around has the same mind as the person who came up with these incredible masterpieces above.
   
    While I do not think Terry Guetta is anywhere near as brilliant as Banksy is, I believe that he is not as stupid as he leads us on to be. I think he has the Paris Hilton way of life: he became famous for not really doing anything. I think Paris is a very smart girl. She wanted to be famous, but had no real talent that could lead her to the stardom that she wanted. So, she relied on her personality and outgoing ways to make her way to the top. I believe that she pretends to be stupid because she was smart enough to realize that being an intelligent, wholesome woman would not get her the same attention that being a woman who says or does things that don’t jive well in society would. This is the same for Terry Guetta. Except, it was not Terry who realized how acting as a crazy man could work to his advantage. Banksy did.
   
    By molding Terry into someone who made his way into stardom by acting the opposite of how any normal person acts, Banksy insured that MWB would make himself talked about in the world of street art. Because I believe that it was not Terry that came up with this idea at all. Terry is just the man smart enough to know when to follow a good plan. He can act, yes. He’s smart enough to see the potential a stunt like this could have, yes. He’s smart enough to understand the message Banksy is trying to convey, yes. He has a few screws loose? …Most likely yes.
   
    The thing that strikes me as the biggest piece of evidence that Terry was acting crazier than he actually is in this documentary was his wife. I don’t know any women that would stay with a man who not only obsessively and creepily filmed every part of their life, but also gave up his business to go run around at night doing illegal activity. Where did they come up with the money to survive? When did he have time for his family? Did she do it all? Most women would have a problem with this, but in the ending credits it said that she just took up his abandoned hobby of filming. I don’t see how a woman could stay with a man after going through that type of ordeal.

    I think Banksy was using Terry for a message to the public. He’s showing that our society gets too wrapped up in the personas of those presenting us with their arts, and not thinking about the meaning of the art. Stars like Sandra Bullock can be phenonmenal actresses, but their private antivs will always be more talked about than their work. MBW has no message behind his “art”. He throws colors and patterns together in ways that make his designs interesting to look at and appeasing to our superficial minds, but Banksy strives for something deeper. While his art is beautiful, it also carries value. There is something to be said about each and every one of his graphics. I think this documentary became a social experiment for Banksy, because he’s looking to find out if MBW’s antics can get him on the same level that Banksy already resides on. While Banksy remains so private that nobody can get a chance to talk about anything besides his talent, MBW is so out there that his talent is never as talked about as his behavior is. Is this type of a person really what our society wants to have represent us as a true artist?

    Banksy makes remarks on the corruptions of the world. MBW makes pretty pictures that he needs a team to help him make. And yet somehow, some of MBW’s works are selling for the same prices if not higher than Banksy’s are. If this isn’t a remark about corruption, I don’t know what is.

    I think that the illegality and publicity of this art is what draws people to it so much. I think it only makes the message stronger, because it shows the artist is willing to get arrested in order to get their ideas out in the public. It shows that they feel so strongly about a particular subject that they just want any chance they have at it maybe getting seen for only one day. It also has to happen at night, which means the dedication to the art is great because the day is spent creating the art, and the night is spent figuring out where to canvas it. These artists have to know that there is a good chance that their graphic will be taken down before people really even get a chance to see it. Understanding that this is a constantly revolving expression is something that has to be accepted before one gets into this way of life. A street artist must really have to love what they do, while knowing the downsides that come with this illegal art form.

    I had never heard of Banksy before this movie, but ever since seeing it I haven’t been able to get him out of my head. Right now, the background to my laptop is a Banksy graphic. I think he is an astonishing man. For someone to be able to maintain anonymity after all this time and for being one of the most sought after street artists ever, the man has to be ridiculously intelligent. Which is why I have to stress again that this all must be another one of his messages. I can’t imagine someone like the character that Terry plays would be able to have such a hold over someone who is this smart so easily.

    Banksy’s art is real because it speaks about real issues, not just random things thrown on one canvas the way other artists have done. I respect Banksy for doing what he does because he does it to discuss things like anti-war, anti-capitalism, anti-fascism, anti-imperialism, anti-authoritarianism, anarchism, and existentialism. These are issues that are faced every day and need to be discussed more often. Banksy throws them in our faces and makes us discuss them, even if we aren’t even realizing that we are.

Picture Graphics

Vector Graphic

Original Graphic

My Graphic

The Great Seduction Questions

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.

 

         In September of 2004, Keen went to FOO Camp, an organized camping conference that brings together the rich to discuss the benefits of technology. On this particular trip, democratized media was the main discussion. Keen personally was striving to use the internet to always be able to play music from his favorite bands, but democratized media took this a step further in that the audience was to become the entertainer, not the entertained. With this new media, viewers would be able to record themselves doing covers of the songs from Keen's favorite band and become internet sensations. Keen did not like this idea. He believes that with everyone being able to post, talent dies and the talentless rise. Rather than scientifically acurate information, we find opinions on the subject by those who haven't studied it. This is particularly evident in the website wikipedia, which Keen opposes. Anyone is able to modify this website, which could lead to false information being laid down. Also a problematic flaw of democratized media is the potential for people to take ideas and writings from scholars and post it as their own. It is so easy to cut and paste from websites and those who came up with the ideas in the first place are slowly not getting the credit for them.

2. Compare and Contrast Keens take on Social Media with Douglas Rushkoff's. Which one speaks to you and your own experiences and why?

   

        Keen is against the democratized media aspect of social media, where the audience becomes the author because he feels it is taking away from those that truly have the talent. Rushkoff, on the other hand, ia concerned with new media's role in corporatism. Both men, however, agree that the social media is growing at an alarming rate and needs to be looked at with concern, not just awe.

       I don't really agree with Keen's ideas. I think he makes good points about what to be wary of, but I think that these concerns are being looked into. He makes the point that on sites like wikipedia, anyone can  post false information, and I believe that this is true and something that needs attention. However, it is already getting it. After posting information on wikipedia, you must list the source from which you got your information. If the source is not credible, the information does not go on the site. Also, wikipedia does not boast of being a credible source to use on papers, and I believe that anyone going to the site realizes that not all of the information may be entirely credible. Its all about knowing which sources and sites to use. Because there are still credible, scientific, reliable sources online that come with Web 2.0, and they should be taken advantage of. The point of the internet is that all of that information is at our fingertips so easily. But take away these sites, and thate quick informative search goes away also.

       Furthermore, Keen describes that with the new media, anyone can post themselves online, which gives way to the common people getting themselves noticed. He disagrees with this. I'm asking, why? What's the big deal if theres a video of a talentless singer on YouTube? If it upsets someone so much, don't watch it. It's really that simple. Not all of us can have incredible voices and go to New York and star on Broadway, so why is it an issue if a person that can never realize that dream post themselves virally? This posting is satisfying to themselves, and Web 2.0 gives them the opportunity to maybe feel special for a short period of time.

Grace Sin's Blog

I posted a comment on Grace Sin's blogpost about the internet today.

Whither the Individual

            There is no doubt in anyone’s mind nowadays that the generation of Facebook is taking over. There are many debates at this point as to whether or not my generation is the “dumb” generation because we put so much faith into our new technologies. This faith has caused those in the previous generation to question our intelligence and dependence on technology. But the way I see it, no one knows how our generation will turn out because there has never been such a technology boom at any other point in time. When the car and the telephone were invented, the generation had to adapt with the new technologies of the time but they were not looked as dumb for relying on these new advances, but were praised for what they had found. Why is this not the same for my generation? We have adapted better than any other generation to the advances around us. We are the first to grow up with the technology that we have, so I think it is unfair to say that it has made us stupid, it had just caused us to think differently. We cannot determine whether this is a bad difference or a good difference, but instead have to just see where it leads us. The advances in technology are not going to stop, and nor is our dependence on them, so it is best to learn to change our mindset as technology grows.

            The Facebook boom has caused people to question where the individual has gone. This is relatively stupid. Instead of conforming to one idea through the social site, individuals have learned to express themselves and their interests. Through Facebook, people can choose exactly what they want put to the public, and it increases each person’s chance to get focused on. Most strive for that few minutes of fame, and Facebook allows a person to feel like they get that every day. When people complain that they don’t get the privacy they want from social networking sites, it’s frustrating because they choose what gets put out there. If you don’t want it known, don’t put it on Facebook. It’s really as simple as that. Somebody doesn’t want an employer to know that during the previous weekend, they got too drunk to remember some of the pictures being taken? Fairly simple answer. Do not put those pictures up, or ask friends to delete them if they don’t come from your camera. There’s no use in complaining about the lack of personal space on these websites. At this time they are such a social phenomenon that not everyone on it can be pleased.

            Is the individual withering? I don’t think so. I know who I am and I believe that my Facebook only helps others increase their knowledge of me, because I choose to share. People can argue that in today’s world, everyone “needs” a Facebook in order to stay connected with work and school, and I believe that this is true. However, this Facebook does not have to be used as a place to post pictures, write inane statuses and to let friends write stupid wall posts. My twenty six year old cousin has a Facebook, but he works with the government in Washington D.C. so his is fairly professional. Instead of posting of stupid things he spent his weekend doing, he posts blogs and political issues of today’s world. Facebook is not necessarily a bad thing; it can be used to increase one’s professionalism as long as one learns to control it.

            Mark Bauerlein, author of The Dumbest Generation, believes that the internet is where people "seek out what they already hope to find, and they want it fast and free, with a minimum of effort.” So? Maybe this is the new way of life. Bauerlein agrees that "never have the opportunities for education, learning, political action, and cultural activity been greater," but does not understand that the internet only helps students feed that information. Why is it a bad thing that we can get all the information we need to know from the click of a button? As long as education adapts to these sorts of advances, we have the opportunity to go far beyond what has ever been dreamed. Think of how powerful one can be with not only all of the history of the world at their fingertips, but also the knowledge of today’s society and the ability to keep up with the changes. My generation can all do that.

            Yes, the world has gotten smaller because of these kinds of sites. But does that make us bad people? Is it a bad thing that if I wanted to, I could meet someone in Greece? In Egypt? In Russia? No. Social networking sites may make our society smaller, but only more unified. It doesn’t squash the individual, but brings out the creativity in all of us. If this is not wanted, it does not have to be accepted. I don’t believe in the “hyper-people” theory as long as everyone keeps to reality. And, in today’s world, reality is definitely focusing more in the internet world. Is it a bad thing? Only time will tell. We can’t be sure until we experience it, and that is what my generation is trying to do.