My video mash-up is a combination of audio, still images, and video linked together to present a message. The still images are arranged beginning with the ultra-american John Wayne and ending with three African boys showing the “thumbs up sign,” which is a re-occurring gesture throughout the project. The healthy corn pans off to what represents industry, is the second slide in the project, this slide is followed by two still images of American pollution and the black & white Barack Obama thumbs up picture. This portion of the project is depicting America as a primary polluter of the world and a nation that has put pollution control in a “backseat” role as compared to other political issues. The final image in this section of the mash-up is the dead, non-American boy on the street. This photo is a “result” photo of sorts- saying if this neglect continues this is what will happen. Under this first series of images is the Pledge of Allegiance recited by John Wayne.

The video segment of my project that follows is pretty straightforward and helps even out my argument of pollution effects on poorer nations.

Directly following the video segment is the sentimental images of poor non-americans sifting through trash and garbage. The intent of these images, along with the ambient music behind them, is to evoke emotion from the viewer.

Then comes the question of/for humans. The image that represents this is of a man with the question mark on his head. He is standing in the shadow of the sunlight or prophetical idea that lies behind him. This idea is highlighted by the Beatles “Come Together,” as audio, and a series of images representing togetherness and political approval to achieve a stronger, cleaner world. Together we have a clean and happy future, is the idea of the photos of the African girl swimming in the clean water, and the three boys with the “thumbs up sign.”

My use of text in the title slid and the final slide is intended to place the viewer and give him/her context to what they are viewing. I used the Ken Burns effect as sparingly as possible because in a majority of the photos it took away from the rhetorical message. Yet, it was necessary in the corn crop photo to pan away into the idea of industry/pollution behind agriculture. Also, I used the effect to pan to the faces of people that showed some sort of meaning or emotion in their expressions.

An important aspect of my mash-up was the image/audio collaboration. Originally, I had portions of my project that were just images and no audio, but after watching and re-watching my original finished project I realized that the silence was awkward and unfitting for my mash-up.

Throughout the creation of my video mash-up there was much confusion when it came to the point I was really trying to convey (it changed from my initial still image project). Yet, in the end I brought all my thoughts/points together to a single unified message that is portrayed through a collaboration of video, audio, and still images on iMovie.

In Lawrence Lessig’s “RW, Revived” he speaks about Ben (a close college friend) and Ben’s method of arguing in a research paper it’s called “Writing Beyond Words.” Ben uses others quite in systematic order to create an argument or prove a point of his own. This form of traditional research writing can be compared directly to the photo mash-up method. It’s evident that our own personal words become secondary to those of others, but still our personal point is new,  fresh and our own.

Lessig than questions, in today’s law of writing, is this stealing? Similar to Ben’s construct of other author’s words, contemporary rap artists are “issued ‘stern’ sanctions” for the sampling of other musical recordings. This is confusing. There is no clear line of what can be used and can’t. Previously, Lessig argued if a remix production is not used for profit or is not making money than it tends not to be a trademark violation. Yet, these artists who re-make previous recordings as their own (assuming the recordings are not public domain) are marketing themselves and benefiting from others work.

This takes us back to Ben. Ben is utilizing other authors words to benefit himself and prove his point, so what’s the difference? If Ben doesn’t have to ask the Hemingway estate to quote Ernest, than why should rapper’s need other artists permission?

The photo mash-up is a gray area when it comes to trademark also. There are certain permitted usage photos for any use, but they are limited. Then again the the photos that can be found on a simple “Google Images” search are limitless.

In conclusion, research papers and photo-mash ups deal with many of the same copyright issues as artists looking to market themselves while utilizing other artist’s work. Every time a quote or a picture is used, the intent is to benefit an idea or help prove a point, the problem that we point-provers face is figuring which and what can be used and in what way this can be done without evoking repercussions.

The Twitter phase, and yes I believe it’s a phase, centers around being as non-private as possible. In fact, if you are a celebrity, it seems as though the more outrageous tweets you have the more followers you will have as well.

Freishtat and Sandlin argue that our Facebook profiles are our identities and that through visual rhetoric the Facebook world is able to shape its users into a more Facebook friendly internetee.

In the Twitter case, privacy plays a much larger part into your Twitter identity, and less of the influence comes from the actual site itself- although in the end the nature of the site is to de-privatize your life.

Tweeters like Snookie from Jersey Shore, and CNN’s Anderson Cooper, are professionally vastly different. Still these two tweeters are continues in the posts and therefore we, as followers, begin to understand their lives far clearer than we do the occasional tweeter. Cooper and Snookies’ internet identities are social, connected, personalized, and in Snookie’s case more so that Coopers, not very private.

Twitter is used to the fullest as a professionalized method of advertisement by many of its users. Many companies of “tweet requirements” that force their employees to make a set number of tweets daily, both personal and company oriented posts.

“Privacy as it had been known to previous generations, no longer exists.” – Freishtat and Sandlin

This quote/ method of analyzing the social network Facebook reigns even more true for the habitual tweeter. Still, its a business that thrives in the de-privatized moment that is right now. It’s as fresh as fresh gets, and its social intrigue will continue captivating its users and followers until a less private method of social networking becomes available.

It is Facebook’s ability to connect us that makes it so popular. The network is limitless and as we dive into the analysis of the Facebook rhetoric we can see that perhaps its just this that Facebook uses as a mechanism to control its users. Controlling its users or clientele is a dream that any company has, for it’s a direct sign of that company’s popularity and trust it instills in its participants.

The profile or the most personal aspect of the social network, and Facebook wants to give us the impression that we are in complete control of it. Is this true? The fact of the matter is that anyone can search and find anyone on Facebook and can view at least some sort of picture and information of that person, which seems rather non-private.

Yet, the promise of privacy and security now serves a method for Facebook to enroll in business and PR opportunities. More people are now entrusting their online “social” security to Facebook and therefor creating new prospects of expansion and advertisement.

Facebook creates a sense of trust from its users, yes, but is this trust a facade or is it warranted? Furthermore, why should the users of Facebook believe that at any given time the tons of private information that Facebook has locked away in our personal profiles will not spill out into viral cyberspace.

As any social situation does, Facebook teaches us. Yet, the social control that the network has is real, for its rhetoric deliberately chooses and modulates the social user into a Facebook feen- which speaks to many of the addictive qualities of the website.

The online blogging phenomenon is one that is moving at a viscous pace- expanding and inventing daily. The methods vary, but the overall idea is stationary- get your ideas out instantly so the world can see them.

BlogPulse and coComment .coms are both inventive Web 2.0 sites that Alexander reviews in the “New Wave of Innovation” article. These blog sites emphasize a technique that interests Alexander called “pushing back.” By this he means, once a blog is written an opportunity comes where you can respond with an opinion on or about what was written- it’s kind of like arguing online.

BlogPulse is a trend based site that shows the eb and flow of online blogging, ranging from what is hot to what is not. In a sense BlogPulse is “the opinion of the internet.”

BlogPulse.com is also used by bloggers to track what has been blogged in the past, its popularity, and how often it was blogged about. For instance, if President Obama is having an especially good on bad day in the opinions of online bloggers than his blog stock or online popularity can be seen as + or – on BlogPulse.

coComment allows for its users to thoroughly research online blogging and conversations. Furthermore, the site allows for one to keep track of every post he/she has ever made through a systematic form of online filing. With a site like coComment your words become permanent and easily accessible, so, everything you blog must be able to be backed.  In the end no comments will ever be lost or forgotten, once there made there permanent.

Although BlogPulse seems far more “trendy” than coComment, I believe that the practicality of the later far exceeds the prior. It’s frighteningly intriguing to think that once you blog, it’s permanent and public: Lesson- be mindful of what you say.

http://www.blogpulse.com/

http://www.cocomment.com/

Imagine: A place where one could comment or blog on a web page and that comment could not only be accessible by notification or other means, but also could be tracked to any web page the blogger wishes.

Alexander believes that “social software has emerged as a major component of the Web 2.0 movement.”

Meaning that a vital piece to the success of the Web 2.0 is its ability to keep people informed and connected. Sites like Facebook and various online news sources help to do just that.

Today’s internet is anything and everything. If we think or are unsure about any person, place or thing known to human- the answer- a few clicks away. The most recent and most 2.0ish of these internet marvels is the people aspect of course. From celebrities to long-lost friends if they are connected they’re in. Meaning for the most part if they are alive, then they are a part of the system (Web 2.0), and then we can locate them and figure out their well being.

The best and perhaps most contemporary example of this human connectedness is Twitter.

Looking back to Alexander’s article much of the content, although very intriguing becomes almost archaic. This fact though proves much of what the article takes into consideration- the internet is a non-stop, ever-growing network that will continue to rapidly expand and mature in strife for perfection.

The Web2.0 speaks of an open communication that creates a system of “teaching and learning.” This is done through unrestricted social communication from the work place to academic institutions.

In conclusion, the growth of the web and the opportunities it offer for learning and understanding not only factual information but humans as people we interact with on a daily basis is awe inspiring. It’s almost frightening how important it has become to keep the Web alive, for inevitably our lives revolve in around and through it.