Digital Identity

What kind of footprint do I leave behind by my presence on the internet world?  How does the internet world view me online now, and how do I want them to view me?  Well, after googling myself, I only got one picture pop up of my friend from my google + account, and that was about it.  Nevertheless, I do have other presences online such as Facebook, Youtube, Google +, and various sites, from which an opinion of me could be gathered.  I will likely build up my digital identity by sharing my artistic side.  Already, I share college projects on my blogs, and short films on Youtube.  With the integration of the internet into our daily lives being ever present, it will be fascinating to observe my, and other's, online identities and how they change over the years.  

POL Reading Response

Chapter 6 of Practices of Looking by Sturken and Cartwright presents some highly interesting topics concerning media in our everyday lives.  The section about mass media caught my attention when it talked about how the footage that captured the Kennedy assassination was sold for $16 million dollars, because the footage is, by nature, simply a record of the event and not the event itself.  I find it mind-boggling that because of how we have come to rely on images and video to record history, a piece of footage can be worth millions to the right buyer.  Perhaps it is because of something the authors pointed out after comparing the original footage with a re-creation "the Zapruder film image of the assassination cannot be separated from the event itself, indeed that image is, in essence, the event." (Sturken, Cartwright, pg 229)  Going along with this, I wonder what would have transpired if the original footage had never existed, yet they had still made the reenactment video in 1975 based on people's descriptions of the event and shot at the same location?  Would the reenactment video have garnered such value over time?  Having actual footage is best of course, but I wonder if the reenactment would have gained more sentimental and historical value because it is an accurate interpretation of the event, or if it would have remained obsolete because it wasn't actual footage of the even
       I point this out because the film industry, as a prominent branch of mass media, does reenactments all the time and some are extremely detailed and accurate, while others are loose interpretations made to fit a genre better.  With all of the amazing resources television has these days like elaborate sets, CGI, and talented actors and actresses, I think there is something to be said for authenticity as opposed to props and polish.  My personal experience has been that when I see real original footage of some place, event, or person, I appreciate it greatly, and it adds that much more to my viewing experience.  That being said, I think a reenactment of the Kennedy Assassination at the original location with actors might have actually become somewhat of a valuable piece of historical footage should the firsthand footage not have existed.  However, investigating this topic more deeply has helped me better understand why the value of the original went up so insanely high over time.  You can't get more original than primary source material, and while this particular footage is of a grim event, it is more valuable to historians and investigators to watch what happened with complete accurateness.  In other films, even fiction-based ones, content almost always seems more appreciated and masterful the more genuine and original it is.