Everyone’s on the internet, but how many people are actually concerned about who KNOW what you’re doing on the internet. How much “privacy” actually exists? I think the word, the meaning doesn’t exist.
As I mentioned in my last blog post, I think it’s clear once a person logs onto the internet the idea if remaining private is non-existent. In Zeynep Tufekci’s piece “Engineering the public: Big data, surveillance and computational politics” He discusses George Orwell’s 1984 and the model of control sought by these big systems and social media companies is not one of pure fear, as in the novel, but rather an infrastructure of surveillance for our world. An idea in which I discussed further in my group podcast.
“While browsers, cell phone companies, corporate and software companies, and, as recently revealed, the U.S. government, accumulate extensive information about individuals, the depth and the scale of the accumulated data remains opaque and inaccessible to the ordinary person.”
Is social media worth opening the gates to out information? Does saying no and turning of certain settings really effect how private our information is kept? Who knows.
But if social media users are willing to share all of their personal details to sign up for these sites along with sharing – their location, photos of them and their children or friends and intimate accounts of their daily lives and or struggles – surely they must not expect this information to stay private, or care if this information is shared.
According to a 2012 social media study at the Pew Research Centre in America saw 63% of adults socially present online say they maintain a profile on a social networking site – only 26% of this percentage said they restrict access to their profile say they take further steps to limit what certain friends can and cannot see.
If you’re willing to use the internet, the price you pay is your privacy. That’s how I see it. In our remediation we choose to discuss the debate on the ideology of control over your device.
I chose to story board the scene where Laurie confesses his love to Jo. I thought it was a perfect example of the use of the time period, walking in a field (hillside) with your romantic interest. Sounds like it came straight out of a romance novel.. *cough cough*
The intimate scene takes place on an empty countryside hill with only the two character in focus. It’s a pivotal point in the film as it’s where Jo confesses her feelings and worries as a women in the 1800’s – If she does not marry then who is she in the world.
“when worlds collide… you can run… but you cannot hide”
This week for our remediation we wanted to discuss further the idea of copyright and copying ideas – The internet is a copying machine.
When a produser (content creator) creates certain content what makes it authentically theirs? How are we as an audience and producers ourselves meant to know what is in fact really someones original post and what isn’t. Are we to be naive and believe that most original posts are in fact “original”?
“Creators here and everywhere are always and at all times building upon the creativity that went before and that surrounds them now. That building is always and everywhere at least partially done without permission and without compensating the original creator.” – Lawrence Lessig, Free Culture 2004
How does one put a “copyright label” or trademark on creativity, an idea or a thought. It’s a serious question, is it possible? Am I able to make sure that even if i have a small following or don’t have one at all – that all my ideas and creation will not be copied and taken advantage of.
When I thought of “old” my mind when straight to the Crown. The monogram has been used to represent Queen Elizabeth II. Each Monarch had a different monogram to represent themselves. Queen Elizabeth represents her as “E II R” (That’s E (II) R, meaning Elizabeth II, Regina, and “regina” means “queen. It uniquely personal to her. The use of a monogram is very common for royal family, to address themselves in writing and in status.
As for the new I thought it would be interesting to have a look at Meghan Markle’s monogram – after her marriage to Harry she was assigned one. And then the Prince and Duchess were assigned a shared monogram (which essentially merged their seperate ones) for their Kensington Palace.
There is something very distinct to monographs and font styles. In the royal family they’re quite precise and regal about their fonts. Having either a hand-written style or a serif types style. And the crown is always included to show their importance (but its also just very cute in my opinion). When I was younger, I used to create what I thought were “autographs” but were infact monographs. In which always included a crown because I fancied myself a princess.
But when you look at more well known monograms, those that are in brand names and logos. We can see the use of “serif” fonts are still prominent. Especially in higher end brands – because serif fonts show sophistication and elegance. and those that use san-serif have more bold and clean lines (more minimal)
Unlike the older monogram where it was to show personal information, to show a “seal” of evidence that you were indeed getting information from a certain person, monograms are now used as a branding tool. The Louis Vuitton logo/monogram is so well known, as soon as your see it your mind already reads the monogram as “LV Louis Vuitton” without hesitation. Where as the Queens monogram isn’t as universally known as it hasn’t been branded and marketed to be that way. Monograms have been turning into a branding tool, but still hold their original use, to identify a specific person or persons with a visual design.
The first thing I have to say about our beta progress with chàe is it’s a lot harder to get a hold on everything when in isolation. Having to adapt our plans with our new larger team has made things a bit difficult but we’re powering through and I’m very proud.
Our content has been more consistent than ever, since we post our writers blogs at least one or twice a week – which is accompanied by an Instagram, Facebook and Twitter post. The only thing we haven’t made a move on since the pitch is our YouTube channel.
In viewing our statistics its clear we’ve had growth. The disappoint part is the most growth we have had has been on our Instagram. All our platforms have grown in following but the interacting have been down on our twitter as well as a little bit on our Facebook page. The problem with being ALL online ALL the time, is we’ve lost track in interacting back with our following 😦 so that’s someone we NEED to work on through our creative process.
As mentioned in our pitch we’ve expanded our team and what’s been really beautifully wholesome out these very talented creative women is that they’re just as passionate about chàe and Chelsea, Emma and myself. The biggest change we’ve undertaken since the pitch, is a total rebranding. We’ve transformed chàe to be the best it can be by changing little aesthetic changes in writing and then changing the colour scheme. As a team we realised what out audience is, and what they’re more drawn too and we adapted our brand to be just that. Something that will drawn more of our audience in.
The next big step for us is the release of our third official magazine issue, which we’re aiming to get out into the world in June! We cant wait for what is coming up for chàe.
swoon 