In Chapter 7: "The Two-Dimensional Field: Forces Within the Screen" of Herbert Zettl’s Sight, Sound and Motion: Applied Media, he discusses how simple things, like screen tilting, can have huge impacts on the way that people view images. One of the first things that he points out is that "when we see a tilt to the horizontal plane within the screen we become somewhat disturbed, if not disoriented" (103). This quote specifically spoke to me because I have a condition called Neurocardiogenic Syncope, in which my blood does not flow to my brain in the way that it should. It is just slowed and takes longer to happen. If I stand still on my feet for 10 seconds without moving my legs at all (no bending or shifting weight) I faint. Before this, I would get really bad dizzy spells all of the time and I did some research on how that happens. When you get dizzy, it is generally from spinning around too fast or doing cartwheels. This creates an asymmetry in the signals that are sent from your vestibular system. Basically, your ears are responsible for telling you whether or not you are right side up. So it makes sense to me if images and screenshots are tilted causing a different effect. Another point that Zettl makes is that there is a much stronger screen presence on the right hand side of the screen. When looking at a screen, the first instinct is to look to the right of the image. He showed two pictures to illustrate this. They were the same image, except one was flipped. The tendency was to focus on the right side of the screen, no matter if it was a person or an object. He later continues this discussion by using the example of television hosts. Zettl points out that the host is usually seated screen-right, while the guest is screen-left. This demonstrates that the host is more important and prominent than the guest. Even the placement of the pictures on this post. When you first opened the page, did you look at the pictures first or the text? Go back to previous posts with pictures on the left and see the difference. Do you agree with Zettl? Does the screen asymmetry play as big of a role as he thinks? Should it? How do you think that this has occurred? Where do you think people understood this knowledge from?
Part III of Paul Virilio's OpenSky had three sections: Eye Lust, Sexual Perversion, Sexual Diversion, and Escape Velocity. The first concept that caught my eye was Virilio's discussion on dyslexia. My youngest brother has dyslexia so what he talked about really sparked my interest. He claims that dyslexia is a "kind of visual disorder" (91), which I think makes sense seeing as how you have to see the words in order to read them. He also claims that there is a "clear tendency of dyslexics to see only one image at a time instead of the two the human eye normally perceives when images file past in the same direction or are run past at high speed" (92). My brother could just be a different case, but he claims to just mix up the spelling of the words he sees. He is also lazy and will predict what a word is based on the first few letters. He is a slow reader which could relate to what Virilio is saying, but if he is looking at the words slowly, wouldn't he have an easier time reading since the words are not flying by at a fast speed? Another one of my friends is dyslexic but he reads extremely fast. He claims that when he was younger, he had a large amount of trouble in school, but once he learned to work through his dyslexia, he became an extremely avid reader. Do you think Virilio has a point with his claims on dyslexia? Why or why not? Another thing that I found interesting was that Virilio talks about "love experienced at a distance" (107). This reminded me of some products I had seen on the internet or in Brookstone. There are pillows for long distance couples in which you can tell if one or the other is sleeping. There are also devices which allow couples to get intimate over long distances. Right before this he claims that the "test tube baby of in vitro fertilization" (107) is one of the most amazing examples of mix-ups in genetic information. I know several people who are test tube babies and I think it is something that is becoming more and more popular. Do you agree? Is this becoming a more popular method for conception? Should it be? Why or why not?
Part II of Paul Virilio's Open Sky was not much easier to read than the first part. That is my disclaimer in case anything I say here is completely wrong. Virilio starts off mentioning that "the human body will become the training ground for micromachines that will travel through it in all directions" (49). This specifically reminded me of two things: I, Robot, and Robo Bees. I, Robot is a movie about everyone owning and being helped by robots. One man, played by Will Smith, believes that the robots are going to turn agains the humans, but no one else does. So, naturally, they do and Will Smith saves the day. Virilio reminded me of this because the dependance of humans on technology is unbelievable today. For example, I de-activated my Facebook profile over the weekend. As a result of this, I lost many of my contacts on my phone, my Spotify account wouldn't work, my twitter was a mess, and so much more. We are so connected to the internet and mass media, that our generation has been the "training ground" for social media to work with.
In my sustainability class, we watched a video on robotic bees. These were a result of the actual bee population declining due to a variety of factors. These robo-bees would produce honey like normal bees. This would be an example of how we truly would depend on robots for our products and lives. They would produce something that would no longer be available to us through natural means. These literally are "micromachines". Are there any other things that you know of that would fit this "micromachine" criteria?
Later on, Virilio claims that "the world has shrunk, shrunk unbelievably; we no longer travel, we get around" (62). This also heavily relates to social media in my opinion as well as Skype, Facetime, and so many other devices and programs. To see a certain place or monument, all we have to do is Google it and BAM, there it is. Why would we spend all that extra money to go somewhere when we can just look at it on the internet?
Our class was assigned to read Paul Virilio's Open Sky Part I for this post. While I did not understand for the most part what Virilio was talking about, I did pick up on some things that I could relate to other parts of this class, and even other parts of my life.
Virilio starts off by taking about speed as a relationship between phenomena. He claims that "the speed of light is so important, not only in physics or astrophysics, but in our daily lives" (12). This part of his chapter reminded me of some other articles we have read that mentioned the "three second rule" for a page loading. No, that does not have anything to do with the speed of light, but the whole section that Virilio has is talking about speed itself. Speed is relative to our daily lives in that one of the past articles that we read stated that we would lose interest in a website if it had not loaded in three seconds or less. Another example that I have relating to speed is a video that I have seen that uses jelly beans. This does relate, I promise! It is a stop motion video in which each shot was taken individually. It took over a year to film this 2 minute and 50 second video. Was is worth it? Should they have just used special effects to make this happen? Is it worth more because of it? Why or why not?
At the end of the first section in Part I, Virilio mentions that "cities must adapt to their citizens and not the other way round" (21). This made me think of when cities were first developing. This could be interpreted as when America first was settled or as far back as Ancient Rome. When the US was initially settled, it was done so in a fashion that fit what the settlers wanted. They left Europe to live how they wanted to, and that is just what the did with the new land. They developed it how they wanted and the city adapted to their wants and needs. Ancient Rome became what it was because the people wanted it to be that way and they worked towards getting it so. Yes, cities can adapt to their people, but the people also have to work to get that to happen. Do you agree? Or is this a chicken and the egg situation? Why? Why not?
In Chapter 7: "The Two-Dimensional Field: Forces Within the Screen" of Herbert Zettl’s Sight, Sound and Motion: Applied Media, he discusses how simple things, like screen tilting, can have huge impacts on the way that people view images. One of the first things that he points out is that "when we see a tilt to the horizontal plane within the screen we become somewhat disturbed, if not disoriented" (103). This quote specifically spoke to me because I have a condition called Neurocardiogenic Syncope, in which my blood does not flow to my brain in the way that it should. It is just slowed and takes longer to happen. If I stand still on my feet for 10 seconds without moving my legs at all (no bending or shifting weight) I faint. Before this, I would get really bad dizzy spells all of the time and I did some research on how that happens. When you get dizzy, it is generally from spinning around too fast or doing cartwheels. This creates an asymmetry in the signals that are sent from your vestibular system. Basically, your ears are responsible for telling you whether or not you are right side up. So it makes sense to me if images and screenshots are tilted causing a different effect. 
Another point that Zettl makes is that there is a much stronger screen presence on the right hand side of the screen. When looking at a screen, the first instinct is to look to the right of the image. He showed two pictures to illustrate this. They were the same image, except one was flipped. The tendency was to focus on the right side of the screen, no matter if it was a person or an object. He later continues this discussion by using the example of television hosts. Zettl points out that the host is usually seated screen-right, while the guest is screen-left. This demonstrates that the host is more important and prominent than the guest. Even the placement of the pictures on this post. When you first opened the page, did you look at the pictures first or the text? Go back to previous posts with pictures on the left and see the difference. Do you agree with Zettl? Does the screen asymmetry play as big of a role as he thinks? Should it? How do you think that this has occurred? Where do you think people understood this knowledge from?
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
