Web 2.0verdose

February 10th, 2010

Before I discuss the latest reading, I want to mention that I took a new screencap and revised the first frame of my previous post.

Now, onto Web 2.0 digital storytelling.

Weird thoughts are brewing after reading this article.

I’m beginning to think Web 2.0 is a little too over-analyzed. O’Reilly’s article was good – it hammered out a lot of the internet’s architectural evolution and cultural shifts, painting a picture of a dynamic infrastructure, and also encouraged me to ponder the future of digital media. I’m not completely sure that today’s article really said anything.

It went on about Web 2.0 a bit, and tried to wrap its head around the definition of digital storytelling, and talked about the people aspect, and how we can use it at school. But seriously – what did it say? What was its message? To be honest, I felt neither educated nor inspired to create anything after reading this. In fact, I felt a little bogged down by realizing just how many rules people try to place on this medium, and how desperate we are to define it. Is there a right or wrong way to tell a story digitally? Does it help to try to figure out the core of its peculiar success? It just is what it is, and I’m okay with that.

I think the bottom line is this: there are many, many ways to engage in digital storytelling. The tools are out there to play around with it yourself, whether you’re a pro or a newb. It’s an interesting way to connect with people and express yourself, no doubt. So do it. Or don’t. Point is, it’s there if you want it.

I don’t mean for this to sound too cynical, but I think I’m getting a Web 2.0 overdose. I am still an internet enthusiast in the nerdiest of ways.

2 Responses to “Web 2.0verdose”

  1. Jim on February 11, 2010 5:00 pm

    Two articles and already Web 2.0 overdose? You have so little tolerance :)

    That said, I think tis article does a nice job of leaving the definitions open a bit wile exploring some ways people have used various technologies to re-imagine the linear notions of the story we take for grated. i was hoping the links and examples might spur some ideas and thoughts around experimenting with some different modes of narrating. I’m not sure it’s that much more complicated than that, but I do believe the examples and attempt to think about these as types is useful as we begin to create. Because as much as Web 2.0 and storytelling may seem over analyzed, actually creating an engaging story and making it work is, like with anything, a matter of studying the form and thinking about the craft, and that is what both Alexander and Levine seem to be doing, no?

  2. Victoria on February 11, 2010 6:02 pm

    Like I said, I was a little worried this sounded too cynical. But these were just some of the thoughts that started brewing after reading this article, much to my own surprise. It also might be important to note that I’ve immersed myself in Web 2.0 culture for quite a while, but have only recently begun analyzing it, which has prompted me to start to play devil’s advocate in my brain a bit.

Comments are closed.