#thisisforclass

After receiving feedback from the professor last week we realized that we had drifted away from the main focus of our interest and focused too much on Crypto currencies instead of the communications. With this in mind we have not forgotten our original interest in NFTs but have simply shifted focus on the concept of NFTs as owning a digital item in the virtual world. 

The feedback goes as following:

The Metaverse needs stability and sustainability

 Do you want to build a metaverse with crypto?

Crypto is not a fair trade system: it takes advantage of new/ ignorant users 

Recommendation: focus on the Roblox system of currency 

With these key notes from Professor Kwon and discussion between one another  we have decided to focus on the importance of communication for the  trade and transaction of Robux across three different roblox game under different categories:

Social Game: made for hanging out with people- free

 Paid Access Game: some games are paid access only to play(note: these games are typically survival games) 

Story Based Game: a game that follows a storyline; typically solo. 

Through these games we want to focus on 

Communication without commerce involved: with the help of social games we will have users explore the game without using their Robux for two sessions and analyze their communication between players.

 Move to how users use their finances within a game that requires communication. 

Analyze what players look at when picking a game that requires a playing fee.

Analyze how players use their currency in a plot based game. This goal will focus on if a  change in game type from collaboration based to a solo scenario causes any changes in their communication involving robux.

Look at the differences between new and experienced users.   

To solve the question of:

While communication becomes more and more indispensable in the metaverse; to what extent does communication affect financial decisions in the metaverse? 

Let's get this straight.

p.348 introduces Fowler and Gdansk Man in more detail. They are described, respectively, as "consummately attractive...and...stupid," and "being one of this century's truly great logicians [sarcastically]." Besides that, we have Tom, Navidson, Johnny, Holloway, Jed, Wax, Lude, and Reston

Excluding Reston (and possibly Wax), I feel like the men in this book are either obsessive, attractive idiot/assholes, or dead.

I was so intrigued by what Von Stengel had to say about Warhol and Lichtenstein and Banksy. I wasn't entirely familiar with the others or even his work but I found all of it so enjoyable.

I didn't know about Warhol's background and I guess the image of the Campbell's soup can makes more sense now. I didn't see it as praise for Campbell's/consumerism/mass production - I actually saw it as a critique - as in "why are we reduced to a soup can?" kind of thing. 

And when he showed the image of the many Coke bottles with some not all the way full I thought it was comment on the fact that the new technology/machinery will fuck up products that they're meant to send out and produce at increasing rates. I believed that Warhol was trying to say that we cannot rely on machinery and that mass production will lead to all of us being the same. 

Lichtenstein's work touched a nerve inside of me - I've seen his work, among some of the artists' pieces on tumblr and never knew they were his. Some of them make me feel sad but in a really nice way - I almost started crying when he showed this woman because I could literally feel her emotion. The way he left you hanging and allowing you to guess what was happening on the other end was interested me the most. 

For the life of me I cannot remember that one artist who was feminist? She created top to bottom installations that were meant to empower women and emasculate men. I wish I knew who she was so I could look up her work and even try and see an exhibit. 

Moreover, i liked that he showed us some of his work - his surveillance piece? LOVED IT! I'm not art critic and I wouldn't know good pieces from bad pieces, but the fact that he made it look like you had stumbled upon someone's dwelling as if they had just left was quite brilliant. The fact that he trusted random strangers with his possessions like his computer shows that some people believe in humanity more than others. It was interesting to note that he wanted to make people feel uncomfortable as soon as they walked into either room - in the first room you walked in to a room full of possessions giving you the impression that people had recently been there and then in the second room you were being watched. Such a brilliant twist! How long are you going to stand there and watch other people? Do you feel uncomfortable for watching other people? Do you feel uncomfortable knowing that someone was probably watching you? 

I also liked that each dwelling was different - one was a family in which he made look like was staying there for awhile and then the other room looked as if it was just someone on a business trip or wasn't staying as long. Those details were just a nice touch. It was a comment about our police state - the constant notion that we are being watched.

Banksy! One of my favorite artists - creating simple art that anyone can see (for FREEEEE!!!) while being provocative is what I think makes Banksy so popular. In fact, my cover photo on Facebook is one of his pieces - this one actually. I like that he makes me think. One of my favorite pieces is the one with Dorothy and Toto being stopped and searched by an army official (or someone in uniform). I wish that VS had gone more into depth about what each piece could potentially mean - especially this one. I immediately thought "We're not in Kansas anymore"; our personal freedom has been taken. We're in a police state and nobody is safe - even innocent Dorothy. 

Banksy actually came to NYC last week I believe and is doing one piece per day for the month of October. I've seen some of the pieces on his instagram - definitely worth a look. One of the pieces is his graffiti writing of "Occupy" and then the words "The Musical" written underneath taking a "stab" at the Occupy Movement that was an attack on the Wall Streeters and Big Banks. I thought that it was clever to take something that screams New York City and turn it into something that NYC is known for (the theater district) Unfortunately, this piece was not on Wall Street or in the theater district but in Bushwick, Brooklyn. Unfortunately and much to my dismay, New Yorkers aren't fond of the idea of Banksy being in NYC. In fact, some of his pieces have already been covered up by white paint! Are you fucking kidding me?  Also, a NYC based graffiti crew thought it would be cool to replace Banksy's "Graffiti Is A Crime" sign with their own - "A New York-based graffiti crew replaced a sign that was a part of Banksy's "The street is in play" with one baring their logo and soon after, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, the work was painted over entirely. Other works have succumbed to similar fates" and now the piece is completely white washed, trying to get rid of the traces of Banksy on NYC's walls. (article here)

That is so frustrating - I would rather be provoked to think about something while turning a corner than see "I HEART MY BOYFRIEND" on the walls of NYC. I grew up here, I even think that the "I HEART MY BOYFRIEND" grafffiti is art, but why not let someone who is talented and provocative into our city? Why are our arms not open embracing Banksy? 

Dear New York City, 

Lighten the fuck up - I would be HONORED to have a Banksy orginal on my wall. Fuck off and stop covering them up! 

Thanks,

A Proud New Yorker

Welcome home, Banksy! 

(Me taking a stab at those who were angered at the fact that Banksy did not seek permission to create art on their walls.) 

To which I refer them to this picture, again.