Thursday, March 3, 2011

Blog Seven

"Hip Hop Goes Transmedia: Seven Laws" by Marguerite de Bourgoing is primarily about how the new generation of hip hop is self made. The artists promote themselves by performing at open mics and clubs, and by having a strong online presence through blogs and twitter. It also talks about how hip-hop and fashion are so intertwined that a lot of these artists actually have their own clothing lines.
This article fits in with everything we have been talking about this semester. These hip-hop artists are essentially the embodiment of web 2.0. They are the users creating the content and distributing it without the meddling of the evil record industry. They are on myspace, facebook, twitter, blogger, tumblr, and flickr. They are participatory culture in every sense.
Miller's key argument is essentially that although in one sense nothing is original, in another sense everything is. He says that it is impossible to see anything outside of the context of what we have already learned. The way I see this is that we are all a product of humanities collective experience, and we can't learn or process anything outside of this context. I used the example of science in class. In a sense nothing in science is original, it is all a natural progression of what has come before it. Miller uses Edison as an example of this. Edison expanded on the ideas of others to create the phonograph, which is a new and unique invention. It was however only possible because of the work and knowledge that past scientists had helped to accumulate.
Miller's book is relevant to what we have learned in class so far in the sense that in our day and age we have access to more information than ever, and with everyone online contributing content it is extremely difficult to not include someone else's ideas or work into our own in some form. Though you may not be directly plagiarizing someone, no matter what you are incorporating someone else's ideas in your own.

3 comments:

  1. I agree that we are taking from everyone else in many tiny (and sometimes large) ways. The concept of plagiarizing to me is a strong one, having spent years in school. We are always reminded that attributing our sources is of critical importance, but there are so many problems that I have always seen with that. We don't need to attribute facts 'commonly' known, but what is common knowledge? With the internet, we have thousands of sources that can say the same exact thing, so is anything really original? I doubt my ideas are so unique that nobody has ever come up with them on their own, but I don't get in trouble for not referencing them. To me, it seems we will need to drastically renegotiate the concept of plagiarizing, at least in the academic world.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I also found the references to science to be helpful in fully understanding this reading. Everything is a natural progression, and especially when looking back to the inventors, they used other inventors ideas all the time, sometimes even copying them completely, they just happened to get the patent first.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you could've dug into Miller a bit more here, but overall it was a good post (and I'm happy to have you back into the blogosphere!)

    ReplyDelete