I’m jealous of Roger Horchow. He’s Gladwell’s example of a connector. Horchow knows so many people that he scored a 98 on the last name test in 10 minutes. I could only come with 37 names in seven minutes, but I don’t think given more time I could link more names. Also, my aunt’s last name is Weber, so I kind of cheated because she has a lot of kids. According to Gladwell, I’ll give myself a little credit, my score is higher than Gladwell’s calculated average for college students (20.96), but I don’t want to get too cocky.
Instead of studying for my Introduction to Rock and Minerals exam, which as it turns out is not “Rocks for Jocks” like I hoped it was, and covers complex technical information, I thought about connectors. On Sunday I became obsessed with the idea, my jealousy consumed me. I was talking about it with my friends; they didn’t share my passion. I thought about it all Monday, when I should have been studying crystal systems, and the ratio of silicon to oxygen in the subgroups of silicates (see, that is definitely not covered in “Rocks for Jocks”). How can I be a connector? I know I’m only 22, and should assess my last name count when I’m older, but I can’t stop thinking about connectors. I want to be Samantha J. Maes, the Connector.
I called my parents to wish them a happy anniversary earlier today. My dad wasn’t home, so I talked to my mom for a while. I told her about connectors, and about how fascinated I was by Horchow. I told my mom it wasn’t a skill, but a lifestyle. Meeting people was just something Horchow did on the reg. Then my mom said it, the thing that made me feel so lame, “Your dad seems like a connector, he literally talks to everyone, it’s so embarrassing. Just the other day, when we were leaving the…..” Blah, blah, blah another story about how my parents were together and my dad had to stop and talk to someone somewhere about something. My mom and I are always joking about how my dad doesn’t know the meaning of stranger. He literally talks to everyone. My dad and I used to play a game when we would go places. Basically we would count how many people we knew in the place we were at, and whoever knew the most people won. Sometimes neither of us would know anyone, but most of the time my dad knew at least one person.
By connecting Horchow to my dad, I realized being a connector really is a personality trait. My dad loves meeting new people. He will go up to anyone and ask them about something they’re wearing. He’ll talk to the people waiting in line, any line, anywhere. In high school I applied for a job at the athletic club my family goes to, I ended up getting it. My first day, and almost everyday after that, the people I worked with would talk about my dad. Either he had told them an elaborate, most likely, untrue story, or he had done something weird and funny. I started to wonder, did I get this job, so the people who work here would be able to figure out my dad’s crazy story (the fact that people actually believe my dad, who is 65, was shot out of a canon a few years ago baffles me).
My dad goes to the same bagel place everyday. Everyone knows his name, and they know his order. He goes at all times of the day, but everyone knows him. My dad goes our club almost everyday, and everyone knows him. He talks to the staff, the old ladies, the hot cougars, the body builders, shriveling old men who come to steam. My dad goes to physical therapy for his knee. He talks to all the staff and patients there. Some of the patients are players for the Colorado Rockies. He wanted to talk to one of them one day, and he tripped in a pot hole on the way. The player picked him up and everyday he saw him after that would call my dad “Crash.”
Whenever we’re at the airport my dad sees someone he knows. He’ll know someone in line, or he’ll know the lady working behind the counter.
Not only does my dad know a lot of people, but he stays in touch with those people he doesn’t see regularly. He’s always on the phone with family and friends. He did some contract work in outside of Richmond, Va. and Pittsburgh, Pa. a couple years ago and he still catches up with many of the people he met there. Not just the people he worked with, but the lady who worked at the diner, his neighbors, to name just a few.
My dad is one of the friendliest people I know, and at first I felt lame for being less of a connector than my dad, but then I started feeling pretty good, like maybe since connectivity is a personality trait, I could inherit it?
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
Monday, February 7, 2011
Two things are for sure, Eiffel65isawesome is a hater, and Justin Bieber is an angel
As I was reading my side notes of Here Comes Everybody, I found that the lengthiest notes I made were from chapter 3, Everyone is a Media Outlet. Some of my notes were in disagreement with Shirky’s points, others took a different angle into consideration, still, others were that he totally missed the point. I would reference page numbers, but rumor on the street is that the ereader’s pages are different, so I’m not sure how helpful that would be.
Right before Weblogs and Mass Amateurizations Shirky asks, “What happens when there’s nothing unique about publishing anymore, because users can do it for themselves?” I think this question is ridiculous. The fact that users can publish content themselves makes it unique. My main criticism with this question is that Shirky forgets the most important part of publishing content, the content, not the means of publishing. The content of the message has relevance, if your message has relevance than your message is unique; the medium in which you use to disseminate your message is tied for second place with your status as user or professional.
In Mass Amateurization Breaks Professional Categories, Shirky misses a big point about photographers and cameras in general. Technology has taken cameras to the point where professional shots are easier to take without any background knowledge of how to use a camera. In some ways it’s the camera that makes the picture beautiful, not necessarily the photographer.
Shirky’s photography section made me think of Panasonic’s commercial with the slogan, “You don’t have to be a great photographer, to take great photos.” The ad features your average Joe showing off his beautiful photos at a gallery. Artsy vistors, in their artsy clothes and glasses and hairstyles, are asking him about the photos. Their questions are technical. They’re questions a professional photographer would know the answers to, but he doesn’t even know the terms they’re spitting at him. The commercial is pretty funny, but some people (Debbie downers [no relation Debbie Pearsall in our class, she is quite lovely], negative Nancys, pick your alliterative) were offended.
Eiffel65isawesome said, “God, I truly hope this isn't the future of photography. If everyone just picked up a camera and made "art", then well, it becomes less of an art form. The thing I love about photography is that it merges bits of science and art, and if setting aperture and shutter speed and such to have a good photo become extinct, we'll have lost an amazing art form.”
Like why are you such a hater Eiffel65isawesome (also, why is that your handle? The only awesome song by Eiffel 65 was “Blue”, and that song is soooooo 90’s)? The J198 classes have been taking pictures with their Kodak cameras and they look great, what’s so bad about that? If someone can capture the beauty in our world without the professional background, why should they be criticized?
Oh no, Eiffel65isawesome, you scoundrel you. As I wrote the last sentence to the paragraph above, I realized I’m a bit of a hypocrite. I’ve had a grudge against citizen journalists because I fear they’re going to replace professional journalists. I’m threatened by their ability to gray the definition of “Professional Journalism”. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that citizens like Alisara Chirpongse, aka gnarlykitty, are reporting from the front lines of events professional journalists may not have access to, but at the same time, they didn’t take journalism classes, they weren’t on the Brown and White Staff, they didn’t make a video about Amore Farms, like me. How can I defend citizen photographers, who are taking beautiful pictures with awesome cameras, when I, for lack of a better term, discredit citizen journalists? But then again, maybe I’m not as much of a hater as I thought, after all, wasn’t I emphasizing the importance of content just moments/ paragraphs ago?
Now, I feel I’ve typed in circles. Am I a hypocrite, am I not? Is it about the content, or the professional who publishes it? What is the meaning of the world? Why am I here? I’m feeling so confused and plagued by the heavy questions of humanity. Oh woe is me.
But wait, my final lengthy criticism may just be the key. This was the note I made:
103 in a world where producing music is cheap, and anyone can do it; talent has an opportunity to shine through. If anyone can do it, only the best will make it big. BIEBS
Like I said, page numbers on ereaders are whack, but Shirky’s points on music are also in Mass Amateurization Break Professional Categories. Shirky discusses how anyone can make music with the technology currently at hand, and he’s right, even Paris Hilton made music, but her songs weren’t that big because they weren’t that good. But Shirky misses the point that talented people are discovered because of technology. I don’t want to discredit the struggling artists out there, but if you’re good, people will notice. Look at Justin Bieber, he started out as a meager YouTube performer, but Usher noticed his videos and BAM, he’s a teen idol with a famous haircut and sick dance moves, who is on a poster in almost every girl’s bedroom (Never Say Never comes out this Friday, I’m such a B-lieber). Without YouTube there would be a million more lonely girls instead of “One Less Lonely Girl”. Without a guitar, camera and YouTube account, the world would be deprived of Bieber’s angelic voice. Only Canadians walking the streets of Statford would experience his lyrical sweetness.
So how is Justin Bieber the key to my questions? Well, he’s not really the key, but so much fun to talk about. The key is that if making music is cheap and anyone can do it the best will be noticed. So, if making content is cheap and free, the best content makers will be noticed. If journalists want to keep their street cred, they have to be the best. Citizen journalists are forcing professional journalists to adapt, to be on their toes. Awesome cameras should make photographers do the same thing. If anyone can be the best, then the professionals better start stepping up their game, they shouldn’t be threatened, they should take the rise in amateurization as a challenge, and as inspiration. If someone writes a jaw-dropping story about a massive event, journalists should jump to cover that event unlike the media’s blasé approach to Trent Lott’s racist comments. If average Joe snaps a stellar photo with his new Panasonic Lumix, Eiffel65isawesome better start going out into the world with his/her fancy shmancy camera to save the art of photography. If Paris Hilton wants to have the talent and success of the Biebs, well, who am I kidding, like that will ever happen.
Right before Weblogs and Mass Amateurizations Shirky asks, “What happens when there’s nothing unique about publishing anymore, because users can do it for themselves?” I think this question is ridiculous. The fact that users can publish content themselves makes it unique. My main criticism with this question is that Shirky forgets the most important part of publishing content, the content, not the means of publishing. The content of the message has relevance, if your message has relevance than your message is unique; the medium in which you use to disseminate your message is tied for second place with your status as user or professional.
In Mass Amateurization Breaks Professional Categories, Shirky misses a big point about photographers and cameras in general. Technology has taken cameras to the point where professional shots are easier to take without any background knowledge of how to use a camera. In some ways it’s the camera that makes the picture beautiful, not necessarily the photographer.
Shirky’s photography section made me think of Panasonic’s commercial with the slogan, “You don’t have to be a great photographer, to take great photos.” The ad features your average Joe showing off his beautiful photos at a gallery. Artsy vistors, in their artsy clothes and glasses and hairstyles, are asking him about the photos. Their questions are technical. They’re questions a professional photographer would know the answers to, but he doesn’t even know the terms they’re spitting at him. The commercial is pretty funny, but some people (Debbie downers [no relation Debbie Pearsall in our class, she is quite lovely], negative Nancys, pick your alliterative) were offended.
Eiffel65isawesome said, “God, I truly hope this isn't the future of photography. If everyone just picked up a camera and made "art", then well, it becomes less of an art form. The thing I love about photography is that it merges bits of science and art, and if setting aperture and shutter speed and such to have a good photo become extinct, we'll have lost an amazing art form.”
Like why are you such a hater Eiffel65isawesome (also, why is that your handle? The only awesome song by Eiffel 65 was “Blue”, and that song is soooooo 90’s)? The J198 classes have been taking pictures with their Kodak cameras and they look great, what’s so bad about that? If someone can capture the beauty in our world without the professional background, why should they be criticized?
Oh no, Eiffel65isawesome, you scoundrel you. As I wrote the last sentence to the paragraph above, I realized I’m a bit of a hypocrite. I’ve had a grudge against citizen journalists because I fear they’re going to replace professional journalists. I’m threatened by their ability to gray the definition of “Professional Journalism”. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s great that citizens like Alisara Chirpongse, aka gnarlykitty, are reporting from the front lines of events professional journalists may not have access to, but at the same time, they didn’t take journalism classes, they weren’t on the Brown and White Staff, they didn’t make a video about Amore Farms, like me. How can I defend citizen photographers, who are taking beautiful pictures with awesome cameras, when I, for lack of a better term, discredit citizen journalists? But then again, maybe I’m not as much of a hater as I thought, after all, wasn’t I emphasizing the importance of content just moments/ paragraphs ago?
Now, I feel I’ve typed in circles. Am I a hypocrite, am I not? Is it about the content, or the professional who publishes it? What is the meaning of the world? Why am I here? I’m feeling so confused and plagued by the heavy questions of humanity. Oh woe is me.
But wait, my final lengthy criticism may just be the key. This was the note I made:
103 in a world where producing music is cheap, and anyone can do it; talent has an opportunity to shine through. If anyone can do it, only the best will make it big. BIEBS
Like I said, page numbers on ereaders are whack, but Shirky’s points on music are also in Mass Amateurization Break Professional Categories. Shirky discusses how anyone can make music with the technology currently at hand, and he’s right, even Paris Hilton made music, but her songs weren’t that big because they weren’t that good. But Shirky misses the point that talented people are discovered because of technology. I don’t want to discredit the struggling artists out there, but if you’re good, people will notice. Look at Justin Bieber, he started out as a meager YouTube performer, but Usher noticed his videos and BAM, he’s a teen idol with a famous haircut and sick dance moves, who is on a poster in almost every girl’s bedroom (Never Say Never comes out this Friday, I’m such a B-lieber). Without YouTube there would be a million more lonely girls instead of “One Less Lonely Girl”. Without a guitar, camera and YouTube account, the world would be deprived of Bieber’s angelic voice. Only Canadians walking the streets of Statford would experience his lyrical sweetness.
So how is Justin Bieber the key to my questions? Well, he’s not really the key, but so much fun to talk about. The key is that if making music is cheap and anyone can do it the best will be noticed. So, if making content is cheap and free, the best content makers will be noticed. If journalists want to keep their street cred, they have to be the best. Citizen journalists are forcing professional journalists to adapt, to be on their toes. Awesome cameras should make photographers do the same thing. If anyone can be the best, then the professionals better start stepping up their game, they shouldn’t be threatened, they should take the rise in amateurization as a challenge, and as inspiration. If someone writes a jaw-dropping story about a massive event, journalists should jump to cover that event unlike the media’s blasé approach to Trent Lott’s racist comments. If average Joe snaps a stellar photo with his new Panasonic Lumix, Eiffel65isawesome better start going out into the world with his/her fancy shmancy camera to save the art of photography. If Paris Hilton wants to have the talent and success of the Biebs, well, who am I kidding, like that will ever happen.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)