the digital haze.

Image via Wikipedia

technology is influencing our lives in so many ways, and it is affecting aspects of every subject and discipline. something i wanted to touch on was how technology and media are affecting the art world. two primary areas have been affected most in the last two decades or so: photography and graphic design.

in high school, i took four years of photography; three of darkroom and one of digital. over the course of my time studying the subject, i noticed an increasing emphasis on the digital side of things. in high schools (and even in colleges), darkroom photography is being phased out.

kodak has stopped making photo paper for darkroom developing, thus the price of photo paper is increasing, and schools are becoming less and less willing to accommodate for building darkrooms and disposing of hazardous chemicals used in the developing process.

personally, while the phasing out of traditional photography and introduction of digital photography makes sense economically and ecologically, i think there's something to be said for traditional photography. i much preferred my years in traditional photography to the one i spent doing digital. i think there's more of a sense of personal accomplishment that goes into taking photos, developing the film, enlarging the image, and having the technique and skill to refine the photograph. in digital photography, there aren't those little quirks that make a roll of film interesting like accidental reticulation (look it up, it's a neat technique!).

in short, digital photography is neat, convenient, and generally cheaper. but traditional is still my personal favorite. it's a labor intensive project, but you can really be proud of what you've done when it's finished.

Image via Wikipedia

wednesday morning i logged onto facebook and was immmediately presented with a message about how the site was returning to its original terms of use because its recent revision was causing such an uproar with users.

i'll be honest, i didn't even know they had revised the dang thing. realizing this, and the fact that i had no idea what facebook's policy was involving what they could do with my image/information, i decided to probe further.

first of all, i was surprised to find out that if you are under 18 and not enrolled in high school or college, you are violating the terms of use! who'dda thunk it?

also, i chuckled at the rule about not creating false representations and impersonating other people. i tested this out by searching for lauren conrad (of laguna beach and the hills fame) and promptly received 10 different people with "lauren conrad" profiles within the first few pages.

"By posting User Content to any part of the Site, you automatically grant, and you represent and warrant that you have the right to grant, to the Company an irrevocable, perpetual, non-exclusive, transferable, fully paid, worldwide license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, publicly perform, publicly display, reformat, translate, excerpt (in whole or in part) and distribute such User Content for any purpose, commercial, advertising, or otherwise, on or in connection with the Site or the promotion thereof..."

i must admit, the above statement is a little frightening. not enough so to prevent me from using the site, but knowing that a company has every right to use photos of my friends and i to advertise without notice is a little disconcerting.

"we do not screen or approve Developers". yep, that's what they said. basically, all of those nifty applications you add are totally unregulated. scary stuff.

"When we are notified that a user has died, we will generally, but are not obligated to, keep the user's account active under a special memorialized status for a period of time determined by us to allow other users to post and view comments." what i'd like to know is who gets to determine the appropriate amount of time to memorialize someone who has died? i feel like this is probably outside of the scope of a social networking site.

after reviewing facebook's terms of use and their policies on privacy and things of that nature, i've realized that it's really worthwhile to read these documents before getting involved. i know that it's a big pain and most of us just don't want to take the time to filter through seemingly useless information, but it may just be worth it to see how much of your "virtual rights" you're surrendering.

keep that in mind the next time you blindly click the "i have read and agree to..." button.

a quick trip to www.ruckus.com swiftly kicks you in the face with this little gem.

ruckus was a music service intended for college students which allowed you to access over 3 million songs legally and for free. the catch? you couldn't load them to any portable music player.

the main reason i'm bringing this up is that last friday, ruckus network, inc. shut down the service without warning to anyone, including the university. the diamondback recently published an article about the closing, which is where i heard about this.

the article highlighted that many students either weren't aware of the service or felt that the inability to transfer music made it an inconvenient way to listen. personally, i had forgotten about it; the university advertised it, but with the rise of sites like www.playlist.com, it hardly seemed worth the effort of registration and all that hooplah.

to get to my main point, music sharing sites continue to gain popularity and continue to face hurdles. i remember way back in the day when napster began its steep rise to fame and subsequent plummet into obscurity once legalities were thrown in the mix. i'm a big advocate of legal sharing and downloading of music. i completely understand that we're poor college students and music is just too dang expensive. but at the same time, i have far too many musician friends who rely on music sales in order to continue being able to do so.

i'm not sure what the next phase of music sharing will be, but at present file sharing and streaming sites seem to be a big source of joy (for those who seek free access to new and underground music) and frustration (for those who rely on its sales, as well as the riaa).