Friday, February 21, 2014

Beauty and the beast

All of us have had our oops. It's part of being human, that is, to err. Going through 'oops (hoops), by necessity, leads to oops. And, 'oops define our lives, whether by our own choice or that of another.

We also seem to have evolved into mostly a bunch of critics. There is an adage that could apply here: those who can, do; those who cannot, criticize. One might say that there are less doers than lookers, nowadays.

Aside: So doers? Becoming fewer, too, these doers, in the sense of middle people putting layers and layers upon what might be better left as simple (all sorts of things to discuss here). Examples abound. For one, think of subcontractors hiring subcontractors. In some cases, those in the middle had no idea what is going on. They just like getting their money. Too, the markets, especially with the layers being put in by algorithmic trading type of efforts. We can think of a lot more.

In the past, we could split people into doers and yappers. The yapping was limited, either to some locale (as in, gossip in the break room or at the water cooler) or in limited print. Or, we had the neighborhood idiot with an incessant mouth. As our prowess with publication increased, the range of yapping has grown, too. Gossip rags abounded; some are still around and quite visible (any market check-out stand). Some quirk of human nature pushed this type of thing, we could suppose.

Yet, technology and the cloud (meant to subsume the whole gamut that emerged the past 20 years) have made for tremendous changes in this regard. We'll look at a couple of examples, shortly. Let's just say that these examples are only two of many that could be brought forth. One has to wonder if we are seeing a swift descent to a bottom (bottom?, is there even an end to the potential abuse that seems to go along with this?).

In both cases, we can point to web-based events.
Faces of Olympic figure skating - The page has a collection of photos. In each case, the person in the photo is not poised. Rather, think of this. Have you seen high-definition, high-speed of animals? Say, think of a hummingbird captured at a flower. Are they not beautiful when performing naturally in their natural environment.

What we have here is a snap that illustrates the effects of concerted effort. For one thing, the actions are not normal, rather the person is stressing their body to perform according to some rules that will allow judges to rate the performance of different people. Now, saying that this is not "poised" is meant to point to our knowledge that a whole lot of media is fixed up (air-brushing, etc.). Too, those who poise have all sorts of photos taken, from which are extracted the best. The rest? The cutting room floor.

Now, in this case, again, someone is performing in a manner (and, given that it's the Olypmics) that is phenomenal. Most, we could claim, could not do what is being shown. Yet, the mere presence of this type of snapshot (one might ask if such precise rendering of one's person is ethical) ought to bring to fore another set of discriminators. What? Yes, the judges will be looking with their own sight, from a medium distance. They'll see a flow, as will the audience. As we watch, say pairs skating, we see the grace and dignity. Of course, some of us think of the power. Too, the female partner is in a state that is highly risky (limb and life).

In fact, the photos of the female being thrown shows that she (it's very obvious in one photo) is anticipating how to move through the air (spinning in a controlled manner) and land without falling (or she is coming back from being thrown and will be caught -- ought we ask whether any of the people commenting try to accomplish that feat?).

Discriminators? Yes, observe how the body reacts to the forces, for instance. Perhaps, a physics class could use this to talk these natural reactions. --- After seeing this page, I found out that it is an example of a new genre that has come about via the web. Has anyone studied the urge behind this type of thing (other than getting eyeballs in order to rake in ad dough)? Of course, people are curious; but, again, using this high-tech approach might show sophistication, but one has to wonder about the motivation, and such (okay, money -but, there are many ways to make money that are illegal, or very much socially unacceptable).

Hence, there is beauty in these photos; any beast might relate to how the human mind can overpower (sometimes) natural tendencies (how else our progress?). But, one might ask if a high-focused human is by necessity a beast (I would hope that your surgeon - if you were having surgery - was proper focused).  
Gossip, confessions - USA Today did a little about this bit of stuff. Early on, anonymous commenting was the norm. That brought out an insensitive reaction (via lack of responsibility) which ended up with flaming (and wars thereof) when things dealt with certain topics (a long list). Too, there was downright mischief, such as taunts (notice, that the taunts written about in the post were not anonymous) and bullying (it seems that in some of the situations, the victim set themselves up - go figure that). But, as the sense of (or requirement for?) responsibility came about (initially, the wild-west flavor of the web must have caused a whole generation to regress - when will we see maturity?), some organizations to require an account for commenting.

But, technology keeps moving along as does the ability to partake in this type of thing. One example might be ratings, that might have an account associated with them, however these are not verified, many times. Yet, that type of review can be very helpful, say, to someone traveling to a new area. The same goes for products.

How can we tell if a review is being done in good faith? Or, that some anonymous report has a factual basis (even if it does, the one commenting is applying her/his own interpretation)? Many other questions, and discussions, pertain to this. 

So, again, all types of oops are coming about from our growing prowess with technology. Some of these would have been considered unconscionable by thinking adults prior to the advent of ubiquity and its zombies. Does the tablet bring out asocial tendencies? Actually, the phone itself was problematic, say, those who talk loudly in the presence of others on some idiot phone as if their pollution of the wave space is a right. ... So, many examples exist all the way to the idiot parked in a lane of traffic completely unaware that those who were around him have left; he's there with a string of cars behind him (who can go around, but that can be difficult when traffic comes up from behind rapidly).

Remarks: Modified: 02/21/2014

02/21/2014 --

No comments: