Tara McPherson's essay Reloaded was a strange article to read. Most of the essay was repetitive, uneventful, and quite boring. Generally, each topic did not persuade me to anything. Most of what she said has already either been brought up in other documents, or on television or the internet. A lot of her topics left me saying, "Well, yeah." It was as if everything she said was already assumed. She didn't bring up anything new except a word she made: moving-volition. Most of the connections she "observed" are due to the nature of the internet and television. Such differences, such as internet sitcoms versus television sitcoms, are not open to participate interpretation as to interactivity. The differences are simply the natures of these two mediums. Television always has something on. You have control as to which channel is displayed to your screen, and that is about it. All in all it is pretty easy to get to a television show you like. Internet requires more effort to simply get to a show, but once you do, you have a lot of control due to on demand systems. McPherson brings up this difference as if this was the latest wonder of the world, but such things are just "there." The internet in itself is interactive by nature. There is a lot more to it than flipping channels, like in television. Television is meant to be simple, to require little effort. Just because the internet is more interactive, does not mean it will replace television. Television is a mainstay to many people's lives. News, weather, and many other topics can be accessed at all times. Internet also does this. That does not mean just because you click your mouse more than the remote that we will all be throwing away our remotes for mice.  ¶ 12:47 PM

  Roland Barthes' essay on photography was an interesting way to view the connection between pictures and mortality. To me his views were some what strange at first, especially his connecting taking pictures with death. But as he progressed and explained, I realized he made some valid points. For example, when he states that "Death is the eidos of the photograph," and begins to discuss how he becomes immersed in the camera, he makes sense. When I stand in front of a camera, I pose, and for that short time, life is the camera, as I try to seem a little taller, or make it seem like I'm doing great and I have no worries at all. The "click" of the camera takes over your mind, as you try to appear as some thing more. The Winter Garden photograph of Barthes' mother is his "perfect" photograph of her. We all have a picture of us that puts us in the best light, we have on our best smile; a photo that defines what we believe is our "best" image. When a picture is being taken of us, we try to seem like we are either having fun, or doing something important. Pictures are rarely catalogues of bad times. In One Hour Photo Robin Williams states that if some one saw only pictures of some one's life, they would have to assume that the person had a wonderful life full of back to back fun memories. Barthes' tries to identify with this. He goes a step further in stating that pictures are history, and that even though he has pictures of himself, history is before him. I don't see this as Barthes' begin conceited. I see history the same way. Many things have happened in my life, and they have been recorded, but I do not see them as history. I see history similarly to how Barthes' sees it. It is before me. World War II, The advent of the computer, and many other things are history. Events that have happened during my life are not. Such events have not passed by long enough to be labeled history, as many are still fresh in my mind. All in all, I generally agree with Barthes' views.  ¶ 6:38 PM

  After our class discussion on the American Memory Project, I realized a few things I take for granted when I watch a movie. Today I can choose from a variety of movies that contain extraordinary special effects, sound, and many other qualities early movies could not possess. Today, movie goers expect a film that will draw them into it, immerse them in something different from their everyday lives. Most movies accomplish this fairly well. When we go to a theater, we are quiet, silent (usually) as we watch a new movie, hanging on every frame as we wonder what will happen next. Movie goers back when film first came out, did not have such movies. They were short, and silent, and could not offer strange scenes of other worlds or dimensions. When I found out that watching a series of films during that time was more of a social event, where you talked with friends while the films played, I was a little amazed. The films may have no sound, but I could not imagine carrying on a conversation while I was watching a new movie. An older movie that I had seen many times maybe, but not a new one I was seeing for the first time. But people back then obviously treated films much different than we do today. When I watch some of them, I have to appreciate the creator's attempts to make a something strange occur. For example, when we watched the film in class, The Artist's Dilemma, I was amazed at the ingenuity used to make it seem that the ghost finished the painting in mere seconds. The next thought that crossed my mind was how far technology in movies has come. The first movie I remember seeing in theater was Terminator 2: Judgment Day, and that was a special effects intensive movie. As a child, I could not imagine movies being old, and looking poor. It was not until I was older and I had seen a few older movies, and now, seeing some of the oldest movies, that I have come to appreciate how much technology has actually been integrated into movies. I have come to realize, like everything else, that films have evolved over time to adapt to the audiences' expectations, their wants, and how much movies have changed because of that.  ¶ 2:08 PM