1. What are some pros and cons of ephemeral memorialization?

2. With recent advances in technology, how is memorialization changing to incorporate virtual space?

3. What are some other examples of ephemeral memorials? Do these examples use ephemerality out of necessity or as part of the memorial?

4.  How did the AIDS quilt and Eyes Wide Open establish ethos? Do you think that their respective strategies were effective?

5. What are the advantages of ephemeral memorials over permanent ones? Which one do you feel is more effective and why?

Since this article was published in 2009 there have been several significant advancements to Youtube and web 2.0 in general, to the point where several of the points made in Urrichio’s piece seem quaint and antiquated.

Youtube specifically has become a media giant, and is now unquestionably a separate entity from the traditional media that it was only a companion to six years ago. Content creators such as PewDiePie have made careers out of creating videos for the website. The Swedish gamer in particular raked in $7.4 million last year largely due to advertising revenue from his videos.

The trademark of Web 2.0 has been individual content creators gaining notoriety through uploading their own content. This is on the surface a very democratic approach, and if you create quality content you will be recognized and celebrated for it. In practice, the barrier for entry is still very high, and most of the well-known Youtube celebrities use very expensive recording and audio equipment. Tech reviewer MKBHD, for example, uses a $50,000 RED video camera to record his videos. Popular vlogger Casey Neistat uses his previous experience in advertising to create videos with cinematography that would be impossible for a novice to create. This influx of money and experience to the Youtube scene is a far cry from the early days of the site when videos such as Charlie bit my finger were all the rage

.

Still, even with this influx of money and experience to web 2.0, it still operates around the principle of individual creation. I believe that this will change with the advent of Web 3.0, and I think that we have begun to see the start of Web 3.0 already. Web 3.0 will likely be defined as the introduction of corporations into the web, who create their own content and charge for it. The most obvious Web 3.0 candidate right now would be Netflix, which charges for access to their catalogue of movies and shows, which include their own television shows published on the service.

Other companies are starting to experiment with broadcasting their content on the web first. VICE media has deals with Snapchat, Go90, and Apple Music to produce exclusive series and publishes their flagship television series on HBO, which has recently developed HBO Now, a Netflix clone that publishes HBO’s series at the same time that they come on TV.

Even sports, traditionally a stalwart of cable TV, has begun to move to the web. The NFL reached a deal with Twitter today to broadcast its Thursday Night Football games on the app. The ability to stream NFL games without a cable subscription, which this deal will likely entail, will be groundbreaking for the web.

“Said argued that the concept of the Orient as other serves to establish Europe and the West as the norm.”

1. In regards to the quote above, can the same be said in reverse? Who establishes what the “norm” is?
   1. I do think that the same can be said as reverse. Historically, America has been perceived as a country dependent on the “new”, we see ourselves as a the hearth of commercialism and innovation. I think that we truly see ourselves as the ideal model of a country, at that everything we do from art to science is in fact the “norm”, and we have a low tolerance for anything that doesn’t align with our own ideas.
   2. Society establishes what norms are, but still norms are completely subjective. What’s normal for one group of people may not be normal for others, which  makes it culturally contingent.
2. If meaning is established through differences, how does one account for the similarities?
   1. Going back to the idea of the norm, that’s also how we see similarities. We think that they are SUPPOSED to be that way, because why wouldn’t it be? We are biologically coded to ignore similarities after a while, our brains are developed to process the new and different things because we assume what is already there will not change.
3. Could it be argued that women of the harem were the ones in power and not merely objects for males to gaze at?
   1. Individually they could’ve felt powerful, especially if the were the sole center of attention. There is something innately powerful if you are the only recipient of someones gaze, it feels like you’re captivating them. On the other hand, as a group they were essentially being objectified, if you’re staring at a group it’s hard to differentiate so you just see the whole thing rather than the individual ones which is essentially de-individualizing and dehumanizing.
4. Can “gender in the gaze” be equated to objectification?
   1. Yes it can be, however I think the reason we see “gender in gaze” as objectification is because gender is innately stigmatized to us as a society. We associate certain characteristics with each gender, so when we put gaze in that equation we assume that the gaze is used to justify and follow those stereotypical characteristics.
5. In what ways does the audience of a film identify with what is being played out on screen?
   1. Perspectives can really alter how we perceive a scene, which I tried to talk about in my video essay. They can display the emotions of the protagonist, and communicate that in way that is completely unique to the audience. In my opinion, a successful film makes you feel like you’re in the same reality. You can feel the emotions, you can see the details, you can almost sense everything to the point where you’re so immersed in there that you start to feel like the protagonist yourself, or a familiarity with them. Gaze is sight, what we see is what we perceive, it’s how we process the world which is why it’s so important to how we see film and media. The director can essentially create a reality for us that doesn’t actually exist in real life but it feels like it does. Many prolific directors do this such as Frederic Fellini, Wes Anderson and many others.

Television is a medium that has existed for a very long time with very little change or competition until very recently. This means that they were able to exist without needing to constantly update their business model, which has led to limitations in how fast they are now able to adapt to the changing market.

Recent emerging companies like YouTube, Netflix and Hulu are examples of the competition facing traditional television providers and networks. These companies have all centered their business model on making viewing television shows easier and more convenient. They are also exposing traditional television provider’s flaws and limitations that have resulted from decades of relative stagnancy by offering products that offer basically everything cable television offers but in a much more portable and accessible format. YouTube offers highlights from television episodes like late night talk shows so that the viewer doesn’t have to watch the less interesting parts that come along with watching it from a cable or satellite provider. They are also offering the opportunity for people to both create an view original content that is drastically different than what is offered on television, which fills a niche market where content can be tailored to a very specific audience or released at a much faster pace then the traditional one new episode per week. One of the strongest examples highlighting that services like YouTube are dominating the modern television landscape is the enormous number of platforms that they have designed applications for to make accessing content as painless as possible. The modern phone, iPad, Xbox and even some television screens all have native apps to make accessing YouTube, Netflix and Hulu as seamless as possible.

Going forward, I think that the traditional television providers could attack the Internet and mobile markets much more aggressively. While some do currently have applications for some of the devices I listed earlier, they are also missing from a lot of other important devices and often times are not nearly as intuitive or user friendly as the newer competitions. Another issue is that because the television providers have to make agreements with the networks actually producing the content, their apps become limited because networks limit which providers can have access to their online content based on contract terms. So while Netflix and YouTube can go after specific content, often times providers have to sign a deal big enough to allow access to all content versus just a few different series. The other major issue that limits televisions reach for the modern day viewer is cost. Services like Netflix and Hulu are less than $10 a month and offer an enormous catalog of both film and television shows that can be accessed basically anywhere where you can find an Internet connection. These services can also be cancelled at anytime if they are no longer wanted. In contrast, a cable or dish subscription comes with at least a year minimum commitment and can cost anywhere from $50 to $150+ a month and are really only convenient to access at home. So a higher cost with less convenience is something that they should address if they want to be able to compete with the new companies on the block.

In summary, television as a medium is changing greatly thanks to a small number of companies streamlining the viewing process. If the traditional outlets want to be able to continue to compete with these new companies they must alter their business model and become much more easy to access while on the go or on your laptop.

We have been talking a lot this unit about the idea of New Media and what is included in that idea. One of the main topics of conversation in this unit has been the idea of whether or not film is still considered as a main component in the idea of New Media, especially with the rising technologies of today such ad YouTube, Netflix, Hulu, and many more. There any many ways in which film has drastically changed over the past years and most significantly in the recent years.

For a starting place, the concept of what we define as a film has definitely been altered over the years. Whereas back in the day film was only presented as a medium through the traditional methods of viewing a 1-2 hour film in a theatre, today there are many different methods of presenting what we define as film. And that statement itself constitutes an entirely different argument, the idea of what we define as a film in todays society. With the great advancements in technology and communication, it is much easier for a third party or small operating group to produce a product that could be deemed worthy of the title of film. With the popularity and usability of websites such as YouTube and Vimeo today it has never been easier for anyone to create and share films with the world. The popularity of these websites has changed the idea of what can be defined as a film. Nowadays we can consider a 40 minute video on YouTube with a decent level of production value and design to be a quality film. This has been mainly shaped by the changing society that we live in.

Nowadays people want everything coming at them to be faster, shorter, and more efficient. The average person today probably sees 1 or 2 movies every few months at an actual movie theatre and sees about 4 or 5 times that many on online websites. These websites, which have been shaped by the constant evolution and demand of society, cater to exactly what the people want, the ability to choose what they want, the absence of any kind of advertisement, and the ability to watch films whenever and wherever they want to. This has changed the medium of film altogether as film makers have realized the inevitability of the dying movie theatre scene and started to switch to more user friendly mediums.

Film is still a very prominent form of visual medium in todays society, but it has been drastically shaped by the culture we live in. I feel like the lines between television and film are becoming blurred as film is trying to be shorter, more readily available and more efficient, whereas television is starting to grow more towards film with increasing levels of production value, less advertisement, and increased amounts of story and drama. With the current evolutionary track that visual media is on, I can imagine the future as a dissolved difference between the ideas of television and film where the New Media is a combination of production value, accessibility, no advertisement, efficiency, speed, and quality, aka all of the aspects of film and television that society wants more of and will strip out everything that consumers dislike about the mediums.