A previous post is entitled: What makes a good story?
The following links address a related question, namely: How do you reach an audience?
Harvard Business Review counsels readers on how to get attention
A Jan. 6, 2017 Harvard Business Review article is entitled: “What You Need to Stand Out in a Noisy World.”
The article concludes:
“There are plenty of useful ways to make a name for yourself in your field. But at a foundational level, you need to be viewed as credible, you need to share your ideas publicly so others can see your expertise for themselves, and you need to have a network that’s eager to spread the word. With those three elements in place, even amid oversaturation and information overload, you’ve done everything possible to ensure your voice is heard and your talents are recognized.”
Tim Wu, who coined the term “net neutrality,” speaks of the party that went sour
A Jan. 7, 2017 Guardian article is entitled: Tim Wu: ‘The internet is like the classic story of the party that went sour’: The influential tech thinker has charted the history of the attention industry: enterprises that harvest our attention to sell to advertisers. The internet, he argues, is the latest communications tool to have fallen under its spell.”
The article notes:
“Periodically, though, the line has been crossed. Day’s sensationalist approach, for example, generated an epidemic of patent-medicine fraud (there really was something called snake oil), until it was eventually unhorsed by crusading journalists and scientific research. In the 1950s, American television networks overdosed on quiz shows until revelations that all of the big ones were fixed. And in our own time, the ubiquity of intrusive smartphone ads has led to the ad-blocking revolt that currently threatens to undermine the basic business model of cyberspace.”
In a Q & A, Tim Wu remarks that the internet has turned out great for culture, but can be terrible for politics
“The internet was a reaction to these impulses. Invented in the 70s and 80s, it embodied a mixture of the countercultural and the libertarian instincts and with it brought the attractions and dangers of both. But it is a bit more complicated than that, I think, because the web, in particular, always served to elevate not just individuals, but subcultures and groups over the great undifferentiated whole. I think this helps account for a broader fragmentation not just along individual lines, but cultural and political lines as well. While once upon a time one nation tended to consist of a dominant culture and various subcultures, nowadays there is sometimes no real centre, no mainstream left, just a collection of powerful subgroups that command deep allegiances.
“Whether that’s better or worse than the old conformist media I leave to the reader to decide. Personally, I think it is much better when it comes to culture, but can be absolutely terrible when it comes to politics.”
A Dec. 25, 2016 Associated Press article is entitled: “5 ways museums are using technology for new experiences.”
The article notes:
” ‘Telepresence robots’ — screens mounted on two long poles on wheels — use videoconferencing technology similar to Skype to connect visitors to expert information not quite available from a tour guide.
“The American Museum of Natural History tried it out recently at a special event inside its Northwest Coast Indians Hall to beam an indigenous member of the remote Haida Gwaii community into the museum to talk with visitors.
“And in the not-so-distant future, museum patrons will be able to ask questions to their smartphones about what to see and do during their visit.”
Artifacts and Alliances (2015)
The above-noted article brings to mind a book entitled: Artifacts and Allegiances: How Museums Put the Nation and the World on Display (2015)
A University of San Francisco blog post regarding the book is entitled: “artifacts and allegiances: how museums put the nation and the world on display.”
A related Oct. 28, 2015 New York Times article is entitled: “Toward a Museum of the 21st Century.”
Estonian national museum
A Jan. 1, 2017 Guardian article is entitled: “Estonian national museum review – touching and revealing: Situated on a former Soviet airfield and created by a multinational team in the middle of nowhere, Estonia’s national museum is an unlikely success.”
The article notes:
“The design of the building is the result of a competition held in 2005 and won by a multinational trio of young architects, the Italian-Israeli Dan Dorell, the French-Lebanese Lina Ghotmeh and the Japanese Tsuyoshi Tane, who were working in the London offices of David Adjaye and Norman Foster and sacrificing sleep and leisure to work on their entry in their spare time. Entrants could choose a site somewhere in the grounds of the old manor house. DGT (as the three called themselves once they became an architectural practice) selected a location at the end of the old runway. For the architects it was important not to erase the past – that as Dorell says, the museum could be ‘mature enough to get over the trauma’.”