![]() Original post here. Feedback here. Critical reflection This week we learned about digital image manipulation. We were shown various ways that photos can be manipulated to create different meanings. Photo manipulation applications such as Adobe Photoshop can be used to crop an image of a person and place it into a new setting, perhaps one that does not reflect true reality, but rather creates a distortion of it. As Henry (2013) states, "Image manipulation refers to the alteration of the visual elements, the context or the message o f images that depict people, objects and events with a high level of realism". As technology involved and changed over time, it impacted the way humans communicate. Not only did it give us a means to communicate with one another more efficiently and conveniently, it also gave arise to new ways we could convey meaning - not just through saying, but also showing. It gave us the means to understand and communicate the world around us (Rojas, n.d.). Digital manipulation can convey subtle (or direct) meaning onto to others. It is how the media and businesses work, through advertisements, news, etc (Rojas, n.d.). It also gives other people means to express themselves other than just using words. However, with these changes also introduced more ethical issues. Sometimes the original intent or meaning of an image can be distributed or interpreted ambiguously, or misinterpreted. People can alter an image's message with the intention of changing the behaviour of their viewers, these changes can have political impacts or shift the views of others by creating appealing yet deceptive political or military images (Henry, 2013, p 12). Original authors may also be more vulnerable to theft, or lack of credit from people who use or manipulate their original work. Driving question: 'How do we understand and create images?' Images are powerful as they can convey messages to the world. In the lecture, we learned about how we understand images. We were shown various images, two of these images were taken by photographer Martin Parr in his Common Sense series which these photographs focused on the presentation of the junk food we consume. One of these photographs was of a person eating a burger from Tokyo Disneyland with the bag advertising Mickey Mouse and the other was of cupcakes designed as piglets. Martin Parr | Common Series The message we can interpret from these images is that the bad foods we consume are often disguised to look appealing to our senses. These two photographers in particular can especially appeal to children and mislead them to consume these unhealthy foods because they are presented in a fun way. Martin's choice of content pertains to our reality yet these images come off comical. As in his introduction states, "we keep on discovering these images over and over again in our daily lives and recognising ourselves within them. The humour in these photographs makes us laugh at ourselves, with a sense of recognition and release." (Introduction | Martin Parr, 2016). The way many photos are presented or manipulated can change the way we see them. We can create images through various applications such as Pixlr, Canva and Adobe Spark. Through this manipulation we are able to distort reality and create our own. Another example of photo manipulation that can be used to influence the general public is in journalism. In 2003, during the Iraq War, a photograph was published on the Los Angeles Times that depicted "a dramatic scene in which a British soldier motions to Iraqi civilians to stay down while a father carrying a child creeps across the dirt." (Carlson, 2009). It was later realised that it was a combination of two images by the photographer Brian Walski and he was then later fired. This case emphasises the power that photo manipulation can have in communicating certain messages to the public, despite its accuracy. His visual representation of war shows just how complex and powerful the relationship between image and reality can be. References Carlson, M. (2009). THE REALITY OF A FAKE IMAGE News norms, photojournalistic craft, and Brian Walski's fabricated photograph. Journalism Practice, 3(2), 125-139. Henry, B. (2013). Photographs Do Not Always Reflect Reality: An Exploration of the Ethical Issues and Impact of Image Manipulation in Photographic Fields, Such As, Photojournalism and Artistic Mediums, Such As, Painting, ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. Introduction | Martin Parr. (2016). http://www.martinparr.com/introduction/ Rojas, E. (n.d.). Advantages & Disadvantages of Visual Communication. Small business. http://smallbusiness.chron.com/advantages-disadvantages-visual-communication-42511.html
0 Comments
Critical reflectionIn week 7, we learned about digital image manipulation. We were shown various ways that photos can be manipulated to create different meanings. Photo manipulation applications such as Adobe Photoshop can be used to crop an image of a person and place it into a new setting, perhaps one that does not reflect true reality, but rather creates a distortion of it. As technology involved and changed over time, it impacted the way humans communicate. Not only did it give us a means to communicate with one another more efficiently and conveniently, it also gave arise to new ways we could convey meaning - not just through saying, but also showing. Digital manipulation can convey subtle (or direct) meaning onto to others. It is how the media works, through advertisements, news, etc. It also gives other people means to express themselves other than just using words. However, with these changes also introduced more ethical issues. Sometimes the original intent or meaning of an image can be distributed or interpreted ambiguously, or misinterpreted. Digital images can also hold power in the media. For example, in the news, certain images or footage can be manipulated to create more meaning or play on people's emotions, causing them to feel more sympathetic or swayed by how the media wants people to feel or react. Original authors may also be more vulnerable to theft, or lack of credit from people who use or manipulate their original work. Driving question: 'How do we understand and create images?'Images are powerful as they can convey messages to the world. In the lecture, we learned about how we understand images. We were shown various images, two of these images were taken by photographer Martin Parr in his Common Sense series which these photographs focused on the presentation of the junk food we consume. One of these photographs was of a person eating a burger from Tokyo Disneyland with the bag advertising Mickey Mouse and the other was of cupcakes designed as piglets. The message we can interpret from these images is that the bad foods we consume are often disguised to look appealing to our senses. These two photographers in particular can especially appeal to children and mislead them to consume these unhealthy foods because they are presented in a fun way. Martin's choice of content pertains to our reality yet these images come off comical. As in his introduction states, "we keep on discovering these images over and over again in our daily lives and recognising ourselves within them. The humour in these photographs makes us laugh at ourselves, with a sense of recognition and release." (Introduction | Martin Parr, 2016). The way many photos are presented or manipulated can change the way we see them. We can create images through various applications such as Pixlr, Canva and Adobe Spark. Through this manipulation we are able to distort reality and create our own.
Another example of photo manipulation that can be used to influence the general public is in journalism. In 2003, during the Iraq War, a photograph was published on the Los Angeles Times that depicted "a dramatic scene in which a British soldier motions to Iraqi civilians to stay down while a father carrying a child creeps across the dirt." (Carlson, 2009). It was later realised that it was a combination of two images by the photographer Brian Walski and he was then later fired. This case emphasises the power that photo manipulation can have in communicating certain messages to the public, despite its accuracy. His visual representation of war shows just how complex and powerful the relationship between image and reality can be. References Carlson, M. (2009). THE REALITY OF A FAKE IMAGE News norms, photojournalistic craft, and Brian Walski's fabricated photograph. Journalism Practice, 3(2), 125-139. Introduction | Martin Parr. (2016). http://www.martinparr.com/introduction/ Critical reflectionThis week we have learned about the concept of digital citizenship and having a digital footprint. One of the most alarming things I learned is that a digital footprint can be compared to a tattoo. It is permanent and will exist longer than we live. Our actions online can have significant impacts to our reputations. When we upload a photo, make a comment or post anything, it may be irremovable and will forever remain in the online world, even after we are deceased. This is something we have always known when becoming a user of the internet and a responsibility we have always had - yet it is something we can easily take for granted. I reflect on my past and cringe at the thought of the things I had posted on old social media sites, forums, or sent or said to my friends. I may have forgotten them in my mind, but that does not mean that they are gone forever, somewhere they still remain in the virtual world. Now that I am older and have matured more, I am much more cautious of what I post and share online. I am more sensible and respectful as I know from witnessing others or in the media, how damaging the internet can be to someone's reputation when used irresponsibly. We were also asked various moral questions on digital citizenship in which the class had to stand up if they agreed, sit on the table if they were on the fence or sit down if they disagreed. It was interesting to see the various opinions of my classmates but overall the majority shared the same viewpoint on an issue. I think in the end we should always consider how others may see what we post online and feel about it. Some things are better left unsaid/not shared. Driving Question: 'Do I need a digital footprint?'All online data - your movement, transactions, records - are apart of a digital database and this creates your digital footprint (Weaver & Gahegan, 2007). The things you leave online is your digital footprint and will be apart of your online history and can be tracked. Having a digital footprint is necessary if you are a user of the internet, unless there was some way in which you could completely erase any trace of your online presence. You do not need a digital footprint if you are not an active user of the internet, but if you are someone who wishes to engage with the online world, then yes, I believe you need a digital footprint. Things you say or do will be imprinted in the online world like a tattoo - it will remain there forever. This not only includes comments and photos uploaded, but also online purchases, visited websites, social media usage, everything. As digital citizens, it is important that we are aware that what comes with this citizenship, is having your own footprint. As you explore the internet, you are leaving behind your footprints and more than often they do not fade away.
One of the articles we read by Denis Muller (2014) was about the online journalism website called WikiLeaks. Such a website shows the power the internet can have - and the harm it can do too. A website that leaks private Government documents and information for the general public, particularly online, has concern over legitimacy. Not everything we read online can be taken as the truth and we must be critical of the things we read. There are many ethical questions raised about online journalism and the responsibility of what the journalist posts. This case is just another reminder that we need to be aware of what we're doing online and acknowledge the consequences. References Muller, D. (2014). WikiLeaks, journalism ethics and the digital age: what did we learn?. The Conversation, p. 1. https://theconversation.com/wikileaks-journalism-ethics-and-the-digital-age-what-did-we-learn-28262 Weaver, S., & Gahegan, M. (2007). CONSTRUCTING, VISUALIZING, AND ANALYZING A DIGITAL FOOTPRINT*. Geographical Review, 97(3), 324-350. Reflecting back on weeks 1-4, I have learned a lot about technology and the way we communicate through it. I also had a slight shift in the way I perceived technology that I hadn't considered up until now. Although it plays a large role in my daily life, I had always considered myself more conservative when it came to technology. I preferred physical things over digital versions, and being more physically hands-on than working behind a monitor. I even tried my best to limit my social media use as I felt it was somewhat socially detrimental and distracting and could never replace the intimacy of face-to-face interactions, but after being forced to make a Twitter account and being more involved with technology in this unit, my stubbornness began to wear off. I feel I am more open and willing to be more involved with the online world - to a certain extent, of course - but I can see the benefits it has, especially the educational and social factors. Although week 2 and 3 was more focused on the planning and preparation for our group project in Assignment 2, week 1 and 4 were both enlightening. In week 1, we learned about becoming a critical user of digital technologies, and week 4 focused more on becoming a reflective practitioner and the importance of critical reflection. Throughout week 2 and 3, I met with my team members and discussed our pitch and plan for our product, and witnessing the creativity of my classmates when they presented their product pitches too. There were many ways technology could help motivate children and the major presence it now has in children of this generation - both educational and entertainment wise. Driving Question from Week 1: Do digital natives exist? For the driving question this week, I have decided to return to week 1's question of whether digital natives exist. I believe that 'digital natives' do exist, however, they are not necessarily just anyone born after 1980’s. Anyone can be born in that time and still feel unfamiliar or incompetent with technology. I believe the circumstances of your birth, such as where you were born, how you were raised and if technology was abundant in that environment. Someone who was born in a developed country can have a significantly different experience with technology than someone who was born in a developing country. A study conducted to determine the factors that make a digital native found results that also support the notion that age is not as important as a determining factor as where you were raised (Akçayır, Dündar, & Akçayır, 2016). We were told to read an article on the digital native by Prensky (2001). He talks about the changes we need to make in the education system as the student's of "today" (despite this article being 15 years old) no longer learn the same way the students of the past did. Technology has advanced even more so in the last 15 years, but despite this outdated article, the point Prensky makes is still a solid one. Students hardly rely on a pen and paper as much as they do a laptop and phone these days. It is also thanks to technology that more people are able to attend higher education (studying online). As Prensky says, "Digital Natives are used to receiving information really fast.They like to parallel process and multi-task". I was born in 1993, this was still early in the digital era and the internet had only just been established, so I grew up to see technology evolve into what it is now. I grew up with minimal technology use, the most I used was video games. In school, I still used a pen and paper. The first time we got a computer was one of the most exciting experiences back then and I never owned a mobile phone until I was in highschool and it was a brick of a thing. These days though, I think education recognises the digital natives era, they were now implementing more technology uses in their teaching practices and school curriculum, whereas I remember from my highschool days that technology was only limited to libraries and some classrooms for typing essays or I.T work and was absent in Primary schools. Even as I volunteered at my brother’s partner’s primary school and help her teach, I have witnessed her giving students iPads to use – these are only grade 1 and 2 students! While I am considered a digital native as I am comfortable with using technology, I still feel as if I have lingering values of a digital immigrant. At times I still prefer the traditional ways – such as a pen and paper or reading a physical book over a kindle and face-to-face communication as opposed to online. I believe being born in the digital era does not mean you uphold the values of it nor does it make you competent or comfortable with technology, it just depends on the individuals own experience and preference. References Akçayır, M., Dündar, H., & Akçayır, G. (2016). What makes you a digital native? Is it enough to be born after 1980?. Computers In Human Behavior, 60, 435-440. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.089 Prensky, M. (2001). Digital natives, digital immigrants part 1. On the Horizon, 9(5), 1-6. http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy2.acu.edu.au/docview/214629645?accountid=8194 |
A u t h o rStephanie Lord.
#COMM140. Bachelor of Primary Education at Australian Catholic University. Twitter: @_sl02 A r c h i v e sC a t e g o r i e s |