Today In class, we discussed in depth the Minstrel Show and the effect it has had on american culture. What struck me as, almost Ironic about the minstrel show is that it became one of the most iconic and arguably the first form of purely american entertainment, while simultaneously highlighting the racial stereotypes and the overarching racism present in american society.  One point that I would like to concentrate on however is the argument that the minstrel show continues today in popular culture, through the concept of having to “black up” various artists performance to make them more appealing to a wide audience.

The idea was tossed around that some artists (the class example being 50 Cent who’s “Thug Picture” was compared to his “Regular Picture”) uses the concept of “Blacking Up” to be a popular entertainer. Personally, I disagree with this idea. While I do think that many artists try to sell a particular image of themselves, it is not unique to only pop culture or to African American culture. The idea of selling an image is as old as entertainment itself. Many music stars across a whole variety of genera sell a public image which is very different from their private one. However, I will cede that it is possible the minstrel show could at least have highlighted this concept of selling an image more then ever before due to the sheer nature of its performance, where unlike an artist trying to sell an image by dressing in a particular style of clothes, or using an accent, the actors themselves blacked their faces out and would commonly advertise using pictures of their white selves and their black characters. Therefore, I would say that the minstrel show simply highlighted the fact that it was selling an image by making the distinction that its actors were intentionally changing their appearance for the show specifically.

Today in class, we reviewed the development of the internet from ARPANET as well as many of the different protocols and processes, such as package switching, which when combined led to the creation of the modern internet as we know it. As well as many of the programs and revolutionary design changes, such as graphical user interface (GUI), Hypertext transfer protocol (HTTP) developed at CERN, the  which had a substantial impact on the development of both modern computers and the internet.

On thing I found interesting in particular was the previous operation of computers through the method of punch cards and the sheer amount of material required to create individual lines of program. One fact that I also found perplexing was the creation of the GUI as an alternative to the Command style of user interface which requires users to put in single lines of code to achieve their goals. Essentially,  the takeaway from this class was that the combination of the GUI, the expansion of ARPANET across the US, and the creation of protocols such as HTTP, all lead to the creation of what we know today as the “Internet”

In class on the 14th, the discussion touched on many topics, but the one in particular I would like to expand on is the arguments of both Carr and Bush. Essentially, Carr says that as we continue to advance the methods which we present our information, our attention span will decrease. Bush says however, that as we advance the ways in which we present our information, the methods in which we store and retrieve information will reflect our  natural way of thinking.

Personally, I am inclined to agree with Bush. While Carr makes many good points, I feel his overall logic is flawed because it fails to take into account the impact of information delivery systems on our way of thinking. What Carr considers a generation with a lack of attention due to instantaneous computerized  information could simply be a more accurate representation of how human’s naturally think. Whereas the perceived superior attention of those who were raised using a book system, represent a learned system of “attention” that conforms to and is the result of the available technology.

The logic behind “declining attention span” is flawed.  The use of books in and of itself requires far more attention focused on the activity of finding and compiling the appropriate books to then further the research of the topics at hand. In the case of electronically accessible information, all of the information that a researcher uses is complied into a “Hypertext” which is focused specifically at the topic at hand and has links to related topics and information available (this method mirrors the way that people naturally think, which contrasts to the book method, where a researcher has to thumb through pages of potentially unrelated information to find what he or she is looking for). Therefore, I would personally argue that Carr’s assertion may be somewhat correct that we do in fact have a decreased attention span in terms or compiling research, but that it is no way negative thing, as the information systems we have now do not require the strenuous effort to compile research, but rather are more consistent with how humans naturally think.

Welcome to onMason. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!