The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass Cultural Production?

In the article, The Practice of Everyday (Media) Life: From Mass Consumption to Mass Cultural Production? by Lev Manvich, a change in the universe has taken shape. The existence of media has now progressed into what is known as social media. People have the opportunity now to engage in conversation with others as oppose to just browsing the web. Would this change be considered as harmful and insignificant? The reason why I pose this question is because most people view communication through physical interaction that is face to face or with someone you know. Using the web as a social media platform allows people to communicate with others they have never seen before who can live in another country. To some this new form of communication is not real or something that can have an affect of how the term communication and interactive relationships is defined. These new relationships also transcend into conducting business and the selling and marketing of products.

Manovich points out that the new emergence of social media also known as web 2.0, discovered by Tim O’Reily in 2004, has helped to allow people access to content. This access has enabled them to make the shift from usage among smaller professionals to now non – professional users (320). One might question, what is the problem or concern with this? This universal change has completely influenced the old way of doing things. Now the web that was once used for publishing medium is now used for communication. This new movement has been coined the long-tail phenomenon. Statistical data proves that more people are in fact taking part in more social networks (321).

From reading this article I agree that developments within technology, pertaining to web 2.0 is a transgression from the old way of how people did things. There was a time when people where not able to afford a computer to use, so very few people had access to technology. Now people are taking advantage of the digital world and all that it has to offer. In addition, the business of technology thrives and survives not only on how accessible it is, but more importantly, what it can offer. The more opportunities and innovations it offers to people the longer it will continue to be a strong influence in the world. The emergence of web 2.0 is the reality of that. People communicating is an innovative way to form relationships that are digital and not physical.

The article continues to point out that people are more advance in their digital skills and are now making their own cultural templates following the format used by professionals or they in turn have begun to use professional content (321). I think it is easy to see that the use of technology has made people smarter and independent. Not only have people acquired the skills and knowledge to use the technology available to them, but they are able to develop and organize material on their own.

One thing that really made me think about the influence of media was when I came across the reference between strategies and tactics. The article elaborates on the two and points out that both are linked together in an interactive relationship (323). When I read this I immediately thought about the ways that companies organize themselves and decide what strategies and tactics they will use to draw people in to view their sites and buy their products. It is through web 2.0 that people are growing and emerging socially and technologically. This can be attributed to possibly there own ways of strategizing and developing tactical systematic means of connecting with each other and taking part in both mass consumption and mass cultural production.