Presentations

After viewing this video clip from Ted.com (http://www.ted.com/talks/view/id/92), a few simple and general rules regarding presentations sprang to mind: Humor = Interest, and energy begets energy (in other words, make the audience feel involved).

The first rule applies to most presentations. Laughter, and by extention humor, is almost a universal language. If a presenter can make his audience laugh, then he's broken that proverbial ice. This allows the viewers to feel involved, opens them up to the information that follows, and makes the presentation much more enjoyable. There are, of course, times that this is difficult or inappropriate. A somber funeral may be a case of the latter, though I've seen enough eulogies artfully employ humor to lighten the mood to say that it is not always the case. A dry report of statistical facts may be an example of the former, though the Ted.com presentation certainly proves that humor may be employed if the venue is right.

The second rule, energy begets energy, simply means that it behooves the presenter to try to make the audience feel involved. Not only does this bypass the boredom that sitting through a lecture can cause, it also actsw to open the audience up to actively listening to the presentation rather than zoning out and "doldrumming" it.

A presentation that effectively and appropriately incorporates these techniques will almost always be more effective at imparting its point to the masses. By engaging the audience, audiences will retain more information, making the experience more successful for both the watchers and the speakers.

Kindle, revisited

For anyone out there following this blog, you'll know that I've already weighed in on the Kindle situation in a previous blog (for thos who haven't, see here: Regarding the Kindle). A quick summary, by way of refresher: the Kindle is an electronic book downloading device that uses Amazon to purchase and display digital copies of books. This technology has been heralded as the greatest new thing in the publishing world as well as the spawn of Satan in regards to the potential damage it may cause to the privacy of reading and love for the written page. The newest version, Kindle 2, now has the ability to read the stories to you in a variety of voices.

It is this last innovation that has the writing world up in arms, though I am of two minds on the matter. The issue is that authors and publishers normally get a piece of audio book sales, as well as a portion of written work sales. In this case, the written work royalties are paid, and the audio portion is essentially handed out for free, as the Kindle 2 is bypassing the need for a second audio book sale. My first reaction, after viewing a sample of the automated reading on Youtube, was that I would in no way want to use the current incarnation of the audio text. The voice is too choppy and sounds too electronic. However, Roy Blount Jr., president of the Author's Guild, brought up some good points in his recent NY Times Op-Ed article The Kindle Swindle. He mentions IBM's new voice technology that is virtually indistinguishable from the normal human voice, going so far as to include the subtle hmm's, ha's, sighs, and throat clearing that a human reader would provide. This made me worried. This could actually pose a problem.

I'm not really sure how all of this is going to impact the publishing world right now. I am concerned that the audio version will call for a revisiting of the audio book royalty issues. Perhaps the issue is solvable via the micropayment process. Perhaps a small fee could be charged to the Kindle user to access the text-reader functions on a per-use basis. But how does this leave the end-user? Do they have to pay each time? Does it get charged for each cover-to-cover reading, and how would one track this? Luckily, I'm not the one that has to answer this. I will be following the media in hopes of seeing this to an equitable conclusion.

Cell Art & Literature

Now here's an interesting concept. Not that it's entirely new, it's just a new incarnation of the older schools, really. Cell phone art and literature, when broken down to their most basic forms, are really nothing more than the new digital versions of the artist's sketch pad and the writer's journal. Of course, with the new technology comes some interesting perks, such as a huge multinational instant audience ready to read or critique your work.

I think it's great that this exists now. Think about all of the budding artists, casual and professional alike, that have the opportunity for worldwide exposure! Then again, there is something to be said for the old tried and true methods. The professional editor and publishers are being bypassed with this new literature movement, and the same can be said of the art critics, thereby removing a filter through which the shoddier works previously had to pass. But, perhaps this filter isn't needed. Maybe we've been losing many great stories and paintings that we otherwise would not have seen.

AP & the Obama Poster

I have to admit that I was of split mind before I started into the articles Lisa provided for us. As an artist, I wouldn't want anyone sampling my work without permission. However, I can understand the importance of using reference works and the need to be able use them without fear of retribution.

After looking closer at the images, I noticed that artist's rendition is not a full-on copy, the angle is changed slightly. To me, this is the first indication that the poster should be considered fair use. In this case, he took a sample image of his subject and then drew his subject. He was not deliberately copying the photograph, he was taking a picture of the candidate and using that likeness to create a completely new work of art. Delving deeper, I found a quote that really summarizes my feelings here:

"Fairey's purpose of the use for the photo was political or civic, and this will certainly count in favor of the poster being a fair use [...] Nor will the poster diminish the value of the photo, if anything, it has increased the original photo's value beyond measure, another factor counting heavily in favor of fair use" (Robin Gross, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/29023218/).

I think that the intentions of the artist were not to infringe. He made a derivative work, it was based on the original photo, but it was not a full copy of the original photo. He used the likeness of President Obama, to which the AP has no claim. It would have been better had he used a free-license image, or had he searched out the original photographer or, in this case, the holder of the copyright, but the poster itself should not be considered as a case of infringement.

Regarding the Kindle

This is in response to the linked article in the Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123980920727621353.html

Printed books may soon see their demise, with new digital counterparts ready to take their place. This technological advance may also spell the demise of the already shaky human attention span, as well. In the new digital format, people will have access to communities discussing pages, paragraphs, even single lines of text, all at a moment’s notice. With these distractions, people will begin reading novels in bits and pieces, losing the vital immersion in the story that once existed, parceling out novels the way I-Tunes did with music albums, selling each chapter or line separately.

Like I-Tunes did with music, digital books will usher in an age of micropayments for content that many wish had existed in the original structure of the Internet. They will also make more information more easily available to more people, potentially sparking a global enlightenment movement that has not been seen since Gutenberg’s Bible began the printing revolution.

It is still too early in the technological cycle to know if these e-books will ultimately harm or help the publishing world. Yet the transition has begun, and the signs seem to point toward great things to come.

OpenSource Media

What a great concept! I've always liked the idea of open source programs, and have often wondered about a free-trade or open license option for media rights. It just makes sense. A blogger who has no feasible income from their creative outlet to generate content and a musician who has no real way to promote themselves really make a perfect duo.

I love the idea of low-price contract licensing as well. You sign up now for the options that you think you might need in the future, and send in the contract at the time that you need it. This way all the bases are covered. You have legal price protection for the future and you have legal access to the work for your free service now. All the while, both you and the artist are gaining from the arrangement.

Creative Commons is another great idea. I've looked at them in the past for some of my design classes, attempting to find good quality free images of a diverse amount of subjects. The limited release copyright is a wonderful concept. The artist retains control of the original media, but the user gains the ability to use the art to fit their needs (as long as they provide the proper credits as determined by the user agreement/copyright license).

Ultimately, I think that this is the direction that the world needs to head in. I've been a big supporter of the Marxist system, the original Marxist system, not the perversion that became Big Block Communism, where everyone provides their own services in exchange for access to everyone else's services, a world-wide barter system that allows the people, all the people, not just the select few, to be provided for. The new direction of these media outlets is a great step in that direction.