nude media

What It Means to Strip Media

In his piece titled “Uncreative Writing, Managing Language in the Digital Age ” Kenneth Goldsmith states the following to define nude media: “Once a digital file is downloaded from the context of a site, it’s free or naked, stripped bare of the normative external signifiers that tend to give as much meaning to an artwork as the contents of the artwork itself” (Goldsmith, 72).  Goldsmith gave an example of a New York Times article having small differences from the hard copy to the web version. The web version had a sans serif W in the word Washington instead of a classic black serifed T for Tony (72). The hard copy article was taken and put online and when it appeared online, some of it’s original external signifiers were altered. This online version was a nude form of the hard copy. It is a form of nude media.

Does nude media translate over to Creative Commons media? I personally think that nude media can apply to Creative Commons media. Creative Commons media provides art work that can be shared by anyone. There are certain restrictions depending on the creator of the work, but if it is on Creative Commons it can be shared in some shape or form. So how can a piece of art work on Creative Commons translate into nude media? If someone takes a piece of work from Creative Commons, and takes it out of it’s original element, and puts that piece of artwork into an atmosphere of their own, they are making that piece of media into nude media. If someone takes a photo from Creative Commons and shares it own their own blog, they are stripping that media externally and therefore making it into a piece of nude media. Another example of a piece of art work taken from Creative Commons and being transformed into nude media would be if someone took, for example a photo from Creative Commons, and if the creator put a license on it that people who want to share the photo can alter the photo, and if the person sharing the photo adds small differences to the photo, for example adding an arrow if they want to point something out in particular, that would make this piece of artwork a piece of nude media. If the original piece of work is being altered in some way, it would be considered nude media.  So yes, I do think nude media can come from Creative Commons media and I think the two can be connected.

I find nude media to be very interesting. I had no idea art work could be classified this way until we learned about this is class. It’s weird to think that if an original piece of work has been altered even in the smallest way or taken out of its original element, it can be considered nude media. There is probably so much nude media out there that we do not even recognize to be nude media.  Just like the New York Times example. That was a public piece of nude media that people probably did not even think to be considered nude media. Very interesting!

Nude Media; Origins and Context

Nude media, the articles explains, is when something is stripped of all it’s context, all the original information it was first published with. This refers to pictures, captions, quotes, and formatting. The article shows just how different things can be stripped of their original meaning. It showed the difference between printed/published works and works that may appear online. If someone cuts and pastes something online, a certain quote might be spread around to represent something completely different from what it was originally meant for.

I never actually gave any thought to the way information is spread across the internet. It never occurred to me that information could be so butchered and I never thought that articles might have context. The example was really excellent; the newspaper article on Tony Curtis seems more legitimate and holds a certain credibility that the online source loses when it attempts to go for a simpler/easier read. The article further loses credibility when it is e-mailed to another person. It loses it’s original font and formatting and it becomes increasingly easier to take out of context. People could easily mess up the original message by only sending a portion of the article or  and the writer of Nude Media makes a great point when he states that it’s essentially like a big game of Telephone. It gives new meaning to the common saying that you can’t believe anything on the internet.

It certainly makes me think more on the “facts” and stories I see on various websites. The article also makes me aware that I’ve probably seen many nude media sources of information. Tumblr is a great example of Nude media. Everyday, there are pictures or comics that have meanings and lessons to them but they will never be interpreted correctly because the original poster’s comments get deleted. Other times, a fact or piece of information is posted with a sometimes irrelevant opinion which ends up changing the context of the fact. This information is reblogged countless times and the false. assumed information is spread to others.

Overall, after learning about Nude Media, I think Creative Commons is even more important and useful now. With Creative Commons, people who posted something that wasn’t theirs, they would be required to put a link or an acknowledgement back to the original poster. This wouldn’t get rid of Nude Media but it would at least help combat the issue and it would provide a reliable source for context.

Naked Media

I think naked media is important in that we should be aware that whatever we are sending out into the world may not be read or perceived how we want it to be. On a number of levels this is true for any form or anything we put out there–even when speaking out loud. Everyone has a different experience, perspective, opinion, and view-point which makes it just about 100% impossible to control the reaction of your audience. Things that are very important to you within the text may be a passing footnote for someone else that finds something else in the text very note-worthy. For this reason, it is not strange to think that whatever is being put out there will be up for grabs and interpretation depending on the person.

What is distinctly more difficult is when you cannot even control visually how your work is being taken in. In the case of naked media, there is a n enormous leap from print, to electronic, to even the e-mailed copy. I receive dozens of forwarded articles and pictures or posts from friends daily. I never stop to think in what browser they might have opening this up, or even in what context. This is especially true when things get arbitrarily posted on Facebook, or I’ll read a tweet from Twitter that completely disregards the original person who said that–whether it be a funny line or even a movie quote. I think its worth thinking about, when we stress out over form and fonts and layout, that we may not necessarily have the final say in where that final product may end up and whose eyes will be around to see the re-mixed edition. Whether though harmless sharing, or a slower browser.

For that reason its important to focus on content as telling the story and getting the fact, you cannot solely rely on media, though it does provide for excellent back-up. Your words need to be able to get the point across and explain what is happening. Chances are if someone is really invested in your work, they will do the necessary research to find your original posting or the original way in which something was shared. These are things that are not truly that hard to find unless absolutely all source material has been erased–even your name.

So while it is prudent to take a step back and think about what can get omitted in the process of sharing, I don’t think it should take away from the work you already put into the original publication. There is no way to completely control how someone will experience something, short of strapping them down to a chair and peeling open their eyelids. But that’s creepy and completely un-kosher. Who is that seriously desperate to broadcast the original in that sense? As long as the work is being read in a context that still gives sense to it, then it should be okay. But, still keeping in mind that media does matter–whether its included or not.