Risks of online identity

Sometimes, I enjoy my online identities more than my identity in real world. Of course I know why. Online identities offers a strong sense of security, which means a lot to me. I feel secure and relaxed when I talk to people and don't need to see their face. I could cover myself better. That makes me happy.

I love my online identities, but the thing is the more you love it, the easier you get hurt. I have such experiences so I decide not to devote true feelings too much to protect myself. It feels terrible when you find out someone you trust turns out to be a lier. This kind of thing happens all the time so people should learn to protect themselves from being hurt, as online identity has nothing to do with responsibility. Don't involve too much emotion or feeling when dealing with strangers.

Here's a website where you can meet with random strangers to talk through text or video worldwide. The address is www.omegle.com. I used to hang around a lot partly for practicing English and partly for making friends. For most of the time, it disappoints me as the conversation goes boring and stupid. But the exciting part is that you will never know who 's the next stranger you will come across. The hope of meeting someone really nice and cute is an inspiration. Who knows? The uncertainty is fun.


The fact is that there are several times that I meet someone I want to talk more with, but the relationship all end up unhappy.

Case 1：A boy pretends to be a Taiwaner and suppots seperating. I try hard to convince him to hold the view of territory and sovereign integrity. Then he says he agrees with me, which is a comfort to me. At the end, because of that he wants to further develop our friendship, he tells me the truth that he is actually from Mainland China. What kind of person is that?

Case 2: I met Chris and found out that we have a lot in common so we keep in touch and become very close. Though we didn't tell much personal information to each other, I treat her one of my very good friend. But one day she just disappears and never show up again. Now I can hardly trust any strangers online.

Obviously, I had a great time with my online identity. Everybody does, or else online identity will no longer exist if there's only cheating and unhappiness. But once I open my heart to another identity I didn't know before, I have to be prepared accepting any results. Realising the risk of being hurt is rational and necessary.

Unlike the real world where paying always gets pay back, the internet is uncertain about everything. You try to be honest and nice but your "friend" has no more than cheating. Someone you regard as a true friend may end up disappearing, and nobody will give you an excuse. They just happen, and you just accept the fact.

So, don't take it too big. After all, all the things based on internet is worths doubting.

Technologised bodies in art

Among three artists, I prefer Kazuhiko Hachiya. He invents Inter Dis-Communication Machine, which is shown in the picture on the right hand side. It's an equipment which changes views of the person who wears it. One could only see through the other person's eyes, which offers a great opportunity for people participated to have a special experience about how individule connects with this world. Also, the equipment successfully obscure the border between identities of two persons.

I find this work interesting because it expresses its idea in a relatively soft way. I don't like people combine their body with cold hard metal and make themselves look like some sort of robot who owns super powers. It's uncomfortable when I look at works like that, for example, the work of Stelarc's. They are agressive and make me feel unsecure. What's the point of him walking with the help of his metal robot as slow as I cannot bear when he could walk faster by himself? Art is not about making life more complicated in a world already complicated enough. On the contrary, the work of Kazuhiko is simple and considers more about the feeling of humans. Taking part in this experiment could help people understand each other better as they change identities. They could also get a better understanding about themselves by seeing themselves from other people's eyes. I believe the machine helps shorten the distance between people and it is really an invention that could warm people's heart.

By the way, I don't like the idea about technologised bodies at all. It feels like human body will no longer exist or something, which is absolutely depressed and pessimistic, and of course should be abandoned. 

Is it reasonable to consider computer games as art?

a) How does Adams define art? Do you agree with his definition?

b) According to Adams, what is needed for videogames to be considered as art?


a) Adams says art lasts and could be purchased in galleries, be criticized by critics, and be conserved in museums. Defining art is not an easy job so Adams adds several points to give more details. He says art is a form of communication from the artist to viewer, has ideas and is able to make complex statements, has content and aesthetic, makes you feel things, and is not formulaic. Last but not least, art is not about being useful or be for sale.

Adam actually makes some good point, but for me, no defination could be made correctly when it is about to describe art. Art is so abstract and different to different people as they share different culture and interest, like the old saying goes "There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes." I can't see the point of giving art a definition. No agreement will ever be made. It's pointless drawing a line between art and non-art. I mean, when I love an object very much and according to the definition of art I know this object is not an artwork, then nothing changes. I still hold my love to that object and feel happy when I own it, no matter it belongs to art or not. The distinguishing thing means little to me, so does everybody. So I guess I don't agree with Adams and won't agree with anyone who ever tried to give definition to art.

b)According to Adams, videogames need to consider aesthetic rather than just fun in order to be considered as art. Game developers should experiment with their medium, try new things and offer better games for players to challenge themselves and learn new things from the game. Sims does a great job at this point. The series of Sims take players to an almost-real world to experience a different life. Game Awards must turn from honoring only technological prowess to aesthetic contents to help make better stories. Games also need critics instead of reviewers to recognize artistic merit. Last but not least, the designers of games should receive adequate public recognition and treat themselves as artists. All of the above are ways for videogames to be part of an artwork.

I can't help wonder, why videogames on earth should be part of art? Is artist like Adam crazy and want to change everything into art? Why doesn't he bother to think of changing himeself to a masterpiece. Sometimes the thing is as simple as the fact that not everyone is that much into art, especially game players. So why bother?

Videogames

a) According to the film, what are some pros and cons of playing videogames for individuals and societies?

b) According the film, is there any evidence that digital games can encourage aggressive values and anti-social actions in the real world? Do you agree?

c) Should governments have the right to ban certain games? Why or why not?




Having fun actually is the main purpose for people of different ages to play videogames. People get happiness when they immerse themselves in games and escaping from the real world. They can do whatever they want and don't need to consider about the morality problems, for example, shooting or killing others in various ways. I think game is a good way to reduce the criminal rate as people could release their pressure and fulfill their crazy dream by playing vediogames. Though sometimes game is treated as the helper of wasting time, but when we look this issue as a whole, which means from the perspective of the whole society, I believe game contributes a lot and definately play a possitive role. If there is no game, some people may go crazy as their thought of being crazy and insane once has no way to become true. Everybody knows crazy people are dangerous.

Yes, there are evidence demonstrating the aggressive values and anti-social actions because people play the digital games. A teenage boy took a gun to school and shoot many times. He shoot at people's face which even killers would not like to do the same thing. I agree that some games may arouse the ugly human nature and make people become more violent. I think violence is part of human nature and for most of the time, it's hiden for the sake of morality or reputation. Then there has violent games, people who are addicted into it too much to tell the difference between games and true world are more likely to act violent. So it's better if principles of morality could be put into the game and become part of the game so that people who play violent games could aware of right and wrong. Anyway, I think a much larger number of ciminals will emerge if there's no violent games as I mentioned in the 1st paragraph. So it's not that bad even if anti-social actions take place some times.

Certainly government should not have the right to ban such games. We should consider violent vediogames help maintain the peace of our society. It offers a way for people to satisfy their desire of being violent. When we notice that only a tiny number of people acting unormal after palying violent games, we should know most of people having the awareness of difference of games from reality and how to behave just in the real world. So it would be nice if vediogames could get a free developing environment.

reports of identity interview

Most people have more than 5 identities online. The most popular ones are Facebook, msn, Lingnan Email, QQ, Xanga. Renren, which is what looks like Facebook, is very popular among students from mainland China.

people tend to show the best side of themselves, so beautifying one's image is unavoidable, especially for girls. They will pick the most satisfied pics to put online, which has some difference compared to the real identity. For the most identities online, people are willing to build up an image or some characters that they want to have.

The benefits of expressing one's identity online mostly goes to making friends or deepening the friendship. Somebody else could find jobs by putting their real information online.

People could get into trouble mentally and physically by revealing their information. What if someone fell in love with some dangerous person who pretend to be good.

Amazing YouTube!

click to watch "Leave Britney Alone" on YouTube

"Leave Britney Alone" has totally about 35,317,351 viewers on YouTube. What a huge number! The performer Chris Crocker then became very famous that we can see many films of him on YouTube now. But most of them are crazy and not healthy.

Most of the films done by Chris Crocker are photographed by himself, including the most famous one " Leave Britney Alone". There's no technical factors at all. It gets so many attention mainly because of the idea expressed in the video and the crazy way it it being expressed. On YouTube, where everyone can tell their own story and post them freely, technical terms such as camera angles or the use of light are less important.

Of course it raises interesting socio-cultural issues. The number of viewers can tell something. Most people watch it for fun and feel satisfy after watching such a crazy man screaming out leaving Britney alone, especially when they notice the man is too emotional or say a little bit out of mind. Then they find out that Chris is a gay, which makes the situation more interesting. People want to know more about the personal life of Chris just for fun! What a sick psychological state of human beings. After watching several pieces of Chris' films, I can clearly see that he has some mental problem which makes him easily become very emotional. If the viewers could've cared more about Chris' mental health problem and offered some nice advice to him, maybe Chris could act normally and become a mentally healthy person now. However, the pathetic fact is people only care about what makes them laugh out loud.

I have to admit that this shocking video deserves the attention because it is so unusual and weird. People tend to be interested in funny and abnormal things and this character comes with human nature.

But the point is, how do we react after watching such a special film and what is the right way to react. Only by figuring these problems out could we make places like YouTube more meaningful and helpful in cultural communication. Think deeply and broadly is essential. It is okay not to help a guy like Chris due to the distance problem or other difficulties, but it is not okay if the only purpose of watching the video is to be happy by making fun of other people. After thinking it is ridiculous, we should come up with some deeper thoughts like what makes Chris act like this and is it a good idea to call for attention in such a weird way.

Here goes to the last question. YouTube provides us a platform with different opinions and different types of life. It is a window to look at the whole world through the internet. So convenient it is for people to know and understand cultures of other countries. It definitely contribute to cultural communication and thus enhance creative culture. There are millions of voices on YouTube, and undoubtedly each voice represents an idea or viewpoint. We can easily approach to those fresh ideas and make the good ones part of our own. It's a process of learning, which does good to creative culture.

Mission to Earth

"Mission to Earth" is a special piece of  film work, which is new, interesting and confusing. It involves lots of digital techniques which makes it a digital cinema. Compared to traditional film works, digital ones seem to focus on technology more than the story itself. Human being rarely appears in the screen though they make the stories. Instead, lots of scenes of nobody going along the walls and roads, the changing of color and position of different pieces of shapes are the "starring". The camera focuses on objects to express emotion of human being. Mixed up with digital technology, the objects showned on the screen lead audience to its theme. It really isn't a direct way for audiences to get the point, and some may argue that this is what art is all about.

For my own part, I think the pace of "Mission of Earth" is too slow. Some of the directions on the corner of the screen is distracted and I wonder what exactly is the real funcion of those changing pictures. This kind of films ask audience to pay full attention, or else they may not follow. Anyway, this film is a good try and I believe the way of creating the film will be mature in the near future.