Vannevar Bush’s and Ted Nelson’s visions have fallen short since the creation of the Internet Boom, while other visions have come to fruition. Because the web is so sophisticated now, it would have been tricky for them to estimate what it would become, yet Bush and Nelson’s speculations have had an impact on the internet’s outcome.

When we organize information in a specific way, we push the mind to recognize and create meaning of it. With a World Wide Web  collecting a vast amount of knowledge for individuals, we have blasted our brains with a massive quantity of data. Nelson recognizes this as an imposed mindset, according to the lecture.he expresed the importance of connection inside the interned and how this will improve in some aspect our own social circles.However, this will also have some implications on our cultures.

The internet is a network of billions of connections and resources, far too large for any individual to understand.However,Bush understands the complexity behing this archived data. he aims for finding ways to facilitated the organizacion of this data, with the finality of easing the use of it. Bush wants us to have access to this information and to command it with our own methods.for example: the memex machine which was thoght for collecting concepts, ideas, and observations than can be re-look in order to study the data.

As a result, these innovative minds end up working together.
Bush wants people to have access to this wealth of knowledge, and Nelson wants it to be organized in a way that benefits the intellect. I feel that the internet has paved the road for many innovators, and that they will all be interconnected in some form.

Digital technology easily remediates the narrative arts of all other media (radio, movies, tv, fiction), but it also introduces new possibilities that may challenge our very notions of narrative – that a story needs a beginning, middle and end, for example. Which of the above digital texts engage you most and why? Discuss how we can approach new digital works that present stories in unfamiliar and challenging ways. What are your thoughts/experiences of how the digital, hyperlinks and the web are changing the art of storytelling. 

The My Boyfriend Came Back From War by Olia Lialina digital text was most engaging to me due to its interactive nature. This digital text forced you to click in certain areas to expand the story, encouraging participation among the audience. You could almost engineer the story yourself depending on how many times you clicked or where you clicked. Zit allows the viewer to make the story instead of just follow a linear path that the author may have intended. What makes this interesting is the purposeful nature form the author, they knew that they gave this many options and that the story did not follow a path, but instead the path of what the reader picked.

(Olia Lialina)

These types of works can be challenging due to the lack of structure. It can be challenging to follow, but I think to approach this there needs to be more creativity within the mind, and more openness to the wide path a story can take. We need to have an open mind to these experiences, because if we do not we cannot expand our understanding of the stories of the future. This reminds me a lot of just the networks within the internet. There are infinite amounts of paths to take, but each one opens a new door, and I believe this is what Lialina is getting after in this piece.

The art of storytelling is for sure changed by this new medium and experience. We began with oral tradition and words passed down, then to written traditions and finally this visual writing that tells the story in a completely new way. The art of storytelling becomes bigger than ever due to the many ways in which something can be told, and now interpreted. In Lialina’s piece you get fragments of one story but due to the structure it is up to you to decide the chronology and what makes most sense. I felt like I could choose which way to take the story almost like a “choose your own adventure” type of game. The digital changes a lot of this process for story telling just due to the technology that is not present in a novel or just oral tradition.

(Pocket Gamer)

Vannevar Bush and Ted Nelson were visionary thinkers seeking solutions to the problems of information overload and hierarchical storage systems that seemed to stifle human creativity and associative thought. Now that we have the World Wide Web, in what ways have these visions of Bush and Nelson been realized?  What remains unrealized?

For people who don’t understand the world wide web there is still a lot of space to be explored. There are thousands of resources that everyone still hasn’t explored, like me. Bush understands the twist on how to store this type of “knowledge.” He wants everyone to know how to use this. The internet gives us so much, but not a lot of people understand how to use it.

Nelson thinks of this as an organizing system. When we create an organizing system, that helps the brain break down on how to use the system. With this being said all of the social networks are connected and are organized to talk to each other and make sure that what ever you post is seen on all platforms.

Vannevar Bush and Ted Nelson were visionary thinkers seeking solutions to the problems of information overload and hierarchical storage systems that seemed to stifle human creativity and associative thought. Now that we have the World Wide Web, in what ways have these visions of Bush and Nelson been realized? What remains unrealized?

Bush and Nelson provided an exceptional forecast for devices that they had zero exposure to at the time of their respective discussions. While they provided key concepts as to what could potentially be expected from certain archetypes and maybe inadvertently brought about the way these tools functioned out of their own fruition, they also hit the nail on the head with the potential adversities we would be facing as technology slowly became more integrated into our daily lives.

Nelson used a great “automobile analogy” to describe a simple, mundane circumstance (which many of us have been forced into), and how incomprehensible that circumstance or string of words may have been to someone living in 1905. He used this as a tie-back to how complicated computers and understanding information systems may seem at first – but that understanding and integrating these systems into our lives is a question of when, not if.

“The real heart of the matter of selection, however, goes deeper than a lag in the adoption of mechanisms by libraries, or a lack of development of devices for their use. Our ineptitude in getting at the record is largely caused by the artificiality of systems of indexing. The human mind does not work that way. It operates by association. With one item in its grasp, it snaps instantly to the next that is suggested by the association of thoughts, in accordance with some intricate web of trails carried by the cells of the brain. It has other characteristics, of course; trails that are not frequently followed are prone to fade, items are not fully permanent, memory is transitory.”

Similarly, Bush made, not so much an analogy, but a prediction towards memory supplementation which he coined as “memex”, that was intended to be a device that would be capable of storing records of all formats. He essentially described what would come to be the modern home PC’s and smart devices we carry around today.

Bush and Nelson effectively described that one of the underlying issues with information systems is that wide-spread publication of these systems would leave more questions unanswered than not. They both agreed that the process would lead to exacerbation and the gradual overloading of information for the average consumer. Both agreed and attested that the more information that was provided, the more that information needed to be explained. One of few things that I don’t recall Bush or Nelson speaking to is how susceptible to distraction these devices would make people. I don’t think either anticipated that the network of the world would run on cat videos and 7 second bits of “snackable” content.

Vannevar Bush and Ted Nelson were visionary thinkers seeking solutions to the problems of information overload and hierarchical storage systems that seemed to stifle human creativity and associative thought. Now that we have the World Wide Web, in what ways have these visions of Bush and Nelson been realized?  What remains unrealized?

Since the creation of the world wide web, Vannevar Bush’s and Ted Nelson’s visions have missed the mark while other visions have been realized. Because the web is so complex now, it would have been entirely impossible for them to predict what the internet would turn into, yet still Bush and Nelson’s ideas have wielded influence on the internet’s outcome.

Vannevar Bush who created the hypothetical memex machine follows the idea of associative trails. The notion of associative trails mirror the way our brain works, and Bush’s memex machine aimed to capture this. By storing thoughts, annotations, and ideas it would allow the user to quickly reference past ideas by looking up a topic. There are similarities to this in the modern day internet where people can search version histories and review notes on interconnected cloud software such as Microsoft Word or Google Docs but no such physical version exists. It would be interesting to see how Vannevar Bush would have approached the internet today and if he would prefer a dedicated machine to do this or if he would happy with software.

A large focus of Ted Nelson’s life was dedicated to “Project Xanadu”, a digital database that allowed users to publish documents electronically across the world. A key component of this project centered around the way documents could be traced. As people edited or updated documents, other users could compare version history side by side. This let the origins of quotes be easily accessible along with who said or edited them and when. Nelson wanted Project Xanadu to be a “..valid copyright system, a literary legal and business arrangement for frictionless, non-negotiated quotation at any time and in any amount”. As Nelson has regrettably witnessed, the internet did not end up this way, and as such his vision for Project Xanadu has never seen widespread adaptation.

no more standardized testing please -sincerely, everyone

Vannevar Bush and Ted Nelson were visionary thinkers seeking solutions to the problems of information overload and hierarchical storage systems that seemed to stifle human creativity and associative thought. Now that we have the World Wide Web, in what ways have these visions of Bush and Nelson been realized?  What remains unrealized?

(Zocalo Public Square)

With the World Wide Web I think that there are many things that remain invisible to the common person. This space is a network of thousands of connections and resources, too much for one person to ever comprehend. Bush understands the complexity as to how this knowledge is stored, and aims for creating the task of organizing this mass of knowledge. Bush wants us to have access to this knowledge, and to use our tools to command this knowledge. This vision by Bush is quite large in my opinion. The internet allows us so much access, but I do not think it is comprehendible for a person, it is just too much. But Bush’s vision is unique in that we have begun to realize our power in creating these types of mechanism for storage of knowledge. He compares it to how we make tools to extend parts of our body. The internet or world wide web has extended the powers of the mind instead.

Nelson approaches this through systems of organization. In the lecture talk video it was discussed that Nelson sees this as a forced way of thinking. When we organize something in a particular way, we are forcing the brain to understand it and make sense of it. I may be understanding this part incorrectly, but the world wide web has certainly forced our mind to think a certain way in terms of organization. Something that is realized about Nelson’s vision is the importance for connections. My biggest observation on the effect culturally of the internet is the ease for communication. Nelson also knows that networks that are formed via the web allows for more knowledge to come together.

(E Learning Industry)

So these visionary thinkers end up working hand in hand. Bush wants to see access to this mass of knowledge, and Nelson wants to organize it in a way that will benefit the mind. I think what comes out of this is that the world wide web has opened the way for many visionaries, and all can be connected in some way.

 What do you think are the consequences of digital reproduction on cultural expression today? 

Digital reproduction has increased the rate at which art and ideas are spread by magnitudes. This sudden explosion of information means our culture changes dramatically quicker than before. A movement like #BLM has drawn crowds and media faster than any other similar movement before the digital age. Millions of people have been able to share similar ideas than ever before as a result.

How does the culture of remix confirm or refute Benjamin’s ideas?

Benjamin’s ideas around the diminished value of an artwork as a result of the culture of remix can be refuted by following example.

In music samples and remixes songs will almost always credit the original artist or song in the new title. By doing this they give credit and share the original song with their audience, who is then given exposure to the ideas and values of the first artist’s song should they choose to seek out what the remix was based on.

Spotify’s top remix list displaying original song titles and who the remix is by. 

According to Benjamin, how does mechanical reproduction change culture?

During the start of the COVID-19 pandemic many spin pieces and harmful memes emerged from anti-vaxxers spreading the idea that  coronavirus was a hoax, COVID-19 vaccines were dangerous, and people should not get them. These memes were copied and pasted across the nation and the once small group of anti-vaxxers suddenly swelled as people began to be swept up by their propaganda about the pandemic and vaccine efforts. Digital reproduction has certainly made a positive impact on our cultural expression in many ways; however as evidenced above, because the rapid spread of such controversial ideologies through mechanical reproduction on social media, digital reproduction also has its detriments. Because nearly everybody has the capacity to copy someone’s words and misconstrue them into a negative piece or meme mechanical reproduction has definitely played a part in creating “alternative facts” in changing our culture.

Can a digital work have anything like an “aura?

I believe that digital work can have an aura. While the aura of a digital artifacts may not have the same longevity as a physical one, like Mona Lisa, certainly digital works carry meaning and persuade and inspire their audiences. An excellent example of this would be video game characters. Game design is art, and the characters within it influence hundreds of thousands of people through reproductions, cosplays, fan art, and more. Like an aura, characters go through time and build more lore, giving them more meaning and depth to their fans.

The original artwork for Pikachu, an electric mouse from the game Pokemon. Pikachu, the mascot of this game, has spawned a long running anime, and turned Pokemon into the highest grossing media franchise in existence. 

Mechanical reproduction destroys the “aura” or human component of creation towards any specific culture. The best analogy I can think of would pertain to the work of ceramicists and how the context of their labors would materially shift if their work ever became a product of mechanical reproduction. Their work would become less personal, maybe even less nuanced. One piece of pottery would be a carbon copy of the next through mechanical reproduction, with no sense of expression or uniqueness compared to the means of organic, hands-on work from a ceramicist.

I think this same principal applies to digital reproduction in some instances. Over-dilution of some markets can also be a counterpart of digital reproduction, this is to include memes, remixes, outright replication, or modification. While digital reproduction is not always an accurate representation of the product its replicating, it can also be a means for devaluing certain assets depending on the rarity. I do not think this is a particularly negative component of reproduction, because in some instances this can be considered an appropriate market-correction for what and asset is worth.

We see forms of digital reproduction every day – and if they are not carbon copy reproductions, they are reiterations or reimaginations of ideas. Reproduction is a mainstream part of cultural expression today. Music, for example has become a beacon for reproduction and the reimagining of ideas that were thought up years before contemporary producers got their hands on certain works. I am more often surprised when a producer comes along with a 100% original, unsampled track, than a top 100 billboard hit – even if the sample is or reproduction work is virtually unidentifiable. People seem to always be in this cycle of reproduction, and they seem to be doing it well – so well that it becomes a product its own entirely. This idea simultaneously plays into and against Benjamin’s idea of reproduction. There are many instances in which digital reproduction is executed poorly and strips the “aura” of a piece of work – but there are also instances of reproduction that elevate a piece of work into a life of its own.

Benjamin mentions a few things about the influence and shift on culture in his book Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction.
As opposed to being merely a copy, mechanical reproduction enables towards something totally new. As far as I can tell, it also impacts the presence of time and location in which the artwork or work was designed.Although exceptional, the process of mechanical replication creates a fresh alteration for how we see both space and time.
In fact, Benjamin argues that mechanical reproduction influences culture through new ways of generating media elements.

The fact that everything is so fast and you have only little time to understand, before our device may take it and present us with something different to visualize, is a matter of routine.I believe that the repercussions of digital reproduction today is the loss of historical value. I think that digital work could very well have an aura, although the historical value will be distorted throughout the reproduction procces.

While a new remix of an artwork incorporates its historical value, Benjamin’s thesis acknowledges the importance of this value, it is modified via mechanical replication.So, when we look at a replicate art, the aura becomes difficult to identify because of alterations that occur while reproducing it.However, if the replica of the work is stayed close to the original, a closer glance will reveal the original aura of the artwork.

This conclusion is that the closer we keep to the original work, the more aura we will be able to aprriciate from it, but the further the remix goes, the harder it will be to aprriciate this aura.

The government telling the American people what to do, blindly.