The Sub (-stitute, not marine)
Being the scrawny incubator of all things germy, meant that in week nine while everyone was patting each other on the back, high fiving and presenting their pitches; I was lying on my back, high fevering and presenting everything I’d consumed in the previous 5 days. So instead of telling you about what I think happened, I’m going to share with you my other major work. Not the one about the fever.
Over the course of Spring 2009, I’ve also been enrolled in a Media and Communications subject that covers many of the similar themes discussed in DIGC202. BCM301 takes more of a historical approach however, and tends to focus more so on the idea of digital imprints as historical records. I feel that there is a fair bit of overlap here, as I recall earlier conversations with Wilson and Moore from long, long ago where the idea of an archaeology of new media was presented. In weeks two and three of DIGC202, we discussed earlier forms of communication paths (such as The Spice Route) and when I applied this approach to research to BCM301, found some interesting pieces of information. Flew (2006, 108-109) references the Hutchins Commission on Freedom of the Press (1942) and points out that the media’s role is to allow for discussion and critique. Flew argues that the failure of media to fulfil this function has allowed for the development of participatory new media as an alternative. In a totally anti-McLuhan-esque viewpoint, I feel that our current fascination with participatory media online has developed out of Flew’s argument of the failure of traditional media.
This notion has shaped the way in which we approached the major work. What we ultimately created was a digital archive that presents, discusses and investigates several key ideas surrounding the notion of user-generated histories. The purpose of “History2.0 Histories” (http://usergeneratedhistories.tumblr.com/page/5) was to provide a site that bridged the academic and the everyday, in an easy-to-understand format, that would provide a platform for further engagement and research. While there are several concepts that are explored in much greater detail in the site, one of my favourite is the notion of fixity. Our everyday, ordinary, whimsical web choices, status updates and tweets are permanently stored in an archive fashion, yet are not permanently fixed in one spot and can disappear with a single click. The day of the Sydney red-dust storm was a fascinating case study for us to dissect. The continual status updates on the situation actually lead to the web community to provide more information than the news on television. This particular point is reminiscent of the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004, where Rosenzweig (2006, 136) mentions that the Wikipedia community had a greater grasp on the situation as “news” than traditional news media. He also points out that the lack of fixity of this ever-changing web-community actually allows for more accurate and up-to-date reporting.
While there is not enough scope to fully examine all of the key points surrounding this topic area, it is well worth having a look at the collaborative archive we developed to gain a better insight into our major work. Our overall objective was to help bridge the gap between BCM301, the academic world, the virtual sphere, and our own lives. Hopefully our interpretation of the concept History2.0 may shed a little light on this fascinating area of study.
References:
Flew, T, 2008. New Media: An Introduction (3rd ed.), Oxford University Press, Melbourne, Australia
Moore, C, 2009. Personal Communication
Rosenzweig, R, 2006. ‘Can History Be Open-Sourced? The Future of the Past’, The Journal of American History, Vol. 93, No. 1, 117-146
Wilson, J, 2009. Personal Communication
