#i have another post in my drafts with a similar subject matter but pertaining to 2D vs 3D in particular. maybe i'll post that eventually... | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

decamarks · 2 years

Text

the thing people point out most often in my paintings is usually my use of color. it's definitely my favorite part of painting, so hearing this always makes me happy. but it's weird, because it's really hard to articulate exactly why i choose colors the way i do, aside from basic color theory principles. HOWEVER, i've recently come to the realization that i have one significant influence that i don't often register consciously: IMAGE COMPRESSION. the way colors are compressed is really similar to the way i choose all the colors i use. here's an example of what i mean:

see on the left it's just a normal, white hallway. but when you start to reduce the number of colors through posterization, you see that there's BLUE! and RED and YELLOW! there's all these vibrant, glowy, low-contrast rings of color banding around the walls, comprising an overall 'white' image. they're like little halos of light. the photo obviously looks 'uglier' when you compress it like this, but i can't help but appreciate how unique it looks. it almost looks iridescent. you would never think to use color like this if you weren't a computer trying to crunch together the closest available colors.

there's a lot lost in a camera's translation of raw sensor data to pixels, but the distortion created can be equally beautiful if you look at it through the right lens. i remember zooming into heavily artifacted art when i was little and thinking "how do the artists know when to use white pixels or very slightly bluish-white pixels??" i ended up trying to replicate this a few times, assuming the reason my drawings didn't look as good was because i was using the wrong colored pixels. this initial misunderstanding definitely paved the way for my fixation on the subject, once i was old enough to know what a "jay-peg" is.

the different containers that data, particularly images and sound, are encapsulated in, always define them in some way. the idea of lossless quality—seeing/hearing something the way it was 'meant' to be perceived, free of distortion—is an ideal that i've learned to stop striving for. there's value in compacting things, and conveying them less than perfectly. this concept isn't anything new, of course. the warm fuzz of record players, the blurry imperfection of polaroid photos... these things are genuinely gorgeous, despite their 'ugliness'. it's almost strange to think that effects like these were compromises with the technology available rather than deliberate aesthetic choices.

dithering, reduced color palettes and artifacting are all obviously more modern forms of 'ugly', and thus less often reminisced about. but i really wonder if we'll see more appreciation of them in the future, and i kinda hope we do... i've been showing my appreciation for this somewhat abstractly, but it's undoubtedly still apparent as an influence in my art. i can't help but love it all, honestly.

there's something undoubtedly charming about images so compressed that it's obvious they've been passed around websites for a while, as well as slightly sped up, 128kbps versions of songs uploaded over a decade ago. yes, sometimes it hurts that you can't covey things with lossless clarity—there is always a distortion; a compromise made to compact raw data into something comprehensible by human eyes and ears. these little bits of 'ugliness' are unavoidable and inevitable, because they define the data itself. even your flawless FLAC files become distorted by the speakers that play them. perceptual perfection is always fun to strive for, of course... but sometimes learning to love the limitations of a medium is the best you can do for it.

#tl;dr: i love Images.#i have SO many thoughts on this subject but it popped into mind again today for no reason in particular LOL #i have another post in my drafts with a similar subject matter but pertaining to 2D vs 3D in particular. maybe i'll post that eventually...

85 notes · View notes

neethypaksham · 4 years

Text

Following widespread criticism, the Kerala government has decided to withdraw an Ordinance that gives unbridled powers to the police to arrest anyone expressing or disseminating any matter that it deems defamatory. However, the move to introduce such a law in the first place shows that State governments believe that existing laws are not adequate to deal with social media abuse. To what extent is this true? Vrinda Bhandari and Rishab Bailey discuss this question in a conversation moderated by Jayant Sriram. Edited excerpts:

The principal argument of the Kerala government in bringing this law was that the Central government had not brought in legislation yet to replace the revoked Section 66A, and that had left the police hamstrung in effectively dealing with social media abuse and cyber crime. Are there effective laws to deal with these issues and is it then a question of implementation being weak?

Vrinda Bhandari: I think the Kerala experience shows a belief that many State governments have, that the existing laws are inadequate. But our existing laws are actually adequate. We have the Indian Penal Code (IPC) that criminalises speech that is obscene, defamatory, that insults the modesty of women and intrudes upon her privacy. It punishes anonymous criminal intimidation, it punishes voyeurism, it punishes digitally enabled stalking, hate speech, and even non-consensual sharing of sexual images online. In addition to that, you have the Information Technology Act of 2000 that punishes speech that is obscene. The IT Act also places obligations on intermediaries, where intermediaries have a duty of due diligence; they have to take down content based on a request by the government or a court order. This obligation is actually very broadly worded — any information that is grossly harmful, harassing, blasphemous, defamatory, obscene, pornographic, paedophilic, libellous, invasive of another’s privacy, hateful, or racially or ethnically objectionable, disparaging, etc. As you can see, there is a strong and wide gamut of laws that covers all of these offences.

Yet, you do have States which believe that the laws are inadequate. Apart from Kerala, you have Chhattisgarh, for instance, which recently brought in an amendment to criminalise sexual harassment online. This looked at criminalising “obscene, lewd, filthy or indecent comments online”. And we saw this law being misused against Mohammad Zubair, the Alt News co-founder.

State governments must also be focused on improving the criminal justice system in order to make it easier for women to be able to access the system to make complaints, and for the police to be able to prosecute the complaints properly.

Rishab Bailey: There is no doubt that there is a problem with hate speech in the online space. This is something that’s been discussed at various levels of government. In fact, in 2017, the Law Commission of India recommended that two new provisions be introduced to the IPC to specifically deal with online hate speech. The Central government has also initiated consultations on amendments to the IT Act. One of the issues being taken up in this context is likely to be the scope of offences under the Act; in particular, whether Section 66A needs to be replaced with a better drafted provision.

Of course, putting in place arbitrary or poorly defined offences is really not going to help the situation. So, in the Kerala example, rather than rush into making a new law that is likely to be struck down by the courts, it might have been better if the government had actually outlined the specific problem and conducted more transparent consultations with the stakeholders involved to try and figure out solutions.

Enforcement and implementation of existing laws is not very good. It’s common knowledge that it’s generally not very easy for victims or individuals to file and proceed with complaints. Given the massive usage of the Internet in India, the huge amounts of hate speech online or what you and I would normally recognise as hate speech, there is a really low number of cyber crimes as per the NCRB (National Crime Records Bureau) data. In 2017, for example, there were only about 21,000 cases in India, which is a huge jump from the 12,000 odd cases in 2016. But that still appears to be a fairly low number in the Indian context.

I want to take you back a little. What does the legal landscape on regulation of content online look like post the famous Supreme Court judgment of 2015 that struck down 66A of the IT Act? Has there been any significant legislation or guidelines on grievance redressal or removal of offensive content and do these work effectively?

RB: To answer your question quite simply, there hasn’t been any single legislation that deals with online content, though, as Vrinda mentioned, there have been some States that have put in place amendments to the IPC. What a lot of the public discussion has focused on is how intermediaries need to do more to make the Internet a safer place. To this end, there have been some efforts to amend existing legal frameworks. Two are worth mentioning. The first was a Private Member’s bill, which was introduced in Parliament by the Congress’ Arunachal East MP, Ninong Ering. It was called the Social Media Accountability Bill and it sought to impose a range of obligations on social media platforms, and also create a new regulator to oversee the space. However, the Bill wasn’t actually taken up by Parliament.

Then there were proposed changes to the intermediaries rules under the IT Act that were released to the public in December 2018. They lay down the due diligence guidelines that intermediaries need to follow in order to not face prosecution for illegal content being shared by users on their platforms.

These amendments basically sought to increase the number of obligations on intermediaries of all types, so they would be required to use automated tools to filter illegal content and would also be required to ensure the liability of all the users and so on. The draft faced a lot of criticism from civil society and industry due to the possible chilling effects on free speech, the problems associated with automated filtering of content, and the cost to platforms. So, no new rules have as yet been announced by the government despite the fact that we keep hearing that this may be done any time.

In the absence of any changes in the legislative structure, courts and governments have largely resorted to blocking content or forcing intermediaries to take steps to limit the spread of illegal content. You might remember, for example, how the Madras High Court threatened to ban TikTok because it was supposedly enabling the circulation of obscene content. It’s also important to remember that the government from time to time issues directions, which has happened most recently in the context of WhatsApp, where they have been asked to take certain steps pertaining to illegal content on their platform. You also have an independent regulator, like the Election Commission, which has taken some steps in the context of electorally sensitive content.

What kind of precedent will this set, given that part of the motivation for this law was reportedly a surge in criticism of the Kerala government? Can other States also argue that what has followed 66A is still too transient and in the realm of proposal and so they need new laws?

VB: I think though it might have been politically motivated, one praiseworthy fact about the Kerala government is that it backtracked once there was significant criticism, and that is very rare to see. I hope that may give some cause of concern to other States before they rush to implement some laws, or they recognise that there are possibilities of misuse and will try to tailor the laws narrowly. I think one thing we want to be clear on is if a law is worded in a manner that is so broad that just does not allow any kind of reasonable interpretation and can be completely and patently subject to different interpretations, such a law will not stand. So, I think, yes, the fact that the Kerala government took this step may mean that other States may also take this up. Like I said before, Chhattisgarh has already passed an amendment using similarly broad language to criminalise online sexual harassment and I would argue that this law has already been misused. But I would hope that the Kerala government’s most recent move of withdrawing the Ordinance will make other States stop and think before they pass such laws, or have proper public consultation.

RB: The Kerala government has actually set a good precedent, not just for the States, but also for the Central government. Governments can actually afford to be responsive to criticism and take back laws that face significant public opposition.

Like the Kerala government using the Police Act, are there other State laws that governments can adapt to content online? Is the multiplicity of such laws a problem in this case?

RB: I wouldn’t say that it’s a problem as such, because our Constitution does recognise that States can make criminal law. What could be problematic is if you have a variety of laws being passed to deal with the same issue which might lead to inconsistency. Second, very often State amendments are not going to get public attention in the same way that Central laws do. For example, numerous States have amended laws such as the Goondas Act to apply these to the digital space. However, there’s very little discussion on how exactly these laws are actually being implemented.

VB: The interesting point with regard to State laws is that in Shreya Singhal, which struck down Section 66A, the same judgment also struck down Section 118(d) of the Kerala Police Act which had similar provisions to Section 66A. The court said that Section 118(d) is also vaguely worded and over-broad and adopted a similar analysis to 66A.

This may be a purely hypothetical conjecture on my part, but I think one of the reasons that this Kerala example became so big, the reason it is received a lot of media attention is because it was Kerala that was doing it, and it was just a combination of factors that led to this example being discussed. And I think that’s why the government also backtracked, whereas I think in many cases, when amendments are made, especially State-level amendments, they don’t get that kind of national attention.

0 notes

charlottecovey · 7 years

Text

Thirteen things to do (or not to do!) when submitting to literary journals

Hi! In the past few months, peers have been asking me questions about submitting to literary journals. This is something that I have been doing quite often (and that is putting it lightly) for the last several years. I finally managed to compile a nice little list of things I think are important to know about submitting. Feel free to message / email me with additional questions; I’m sure there’s something I’ve forgotten to cover!

1. READ ALL THE GUIDELINES. This is so important! I just had to make it first on the list. It’s especially important to pay attention to because, while a lot of journals have very similar guidelines, a lot of them have a few weird specific things that set them apart from the rest of the literary journals. For example, Barely South Review requires that you submit each poem separately. Western Humanities asks that the subject line of your submission (generally where the title of the piece goes) be your last name, first name, and then the genre of your work. Some journals only read blind, and ask that you not put any identifying information in the document you send them. Some journals will only read your submission if you have your name, mailing address, phone number, and email address listed at the top of every page. Basically, don’t give editors any reason to reject you as soon as they open your file; pay attention to the little things.

2. Get to know the market. This takes time. It’s taken me over three years to get fairly good at this. Read a sample of the journal if you can. A tip for cheapskates like me: if it’s a print journal that doesn’t feature any work online, find the table of contents of their most recent issue. Google a couple of the writers in that issue. Somewhere, they have all probably published SOMETHING online. Read some of their stuff. It’s not the best way to do things, but it should give you SOME idea of the aesthetic of a particular journal. Also, remember that most journals will take at least three months to get back you. Some only take a month or two, but others, like Painted Bride Quarterly, can take over a year. Keep that in mind as you send work out. Know what to expect. Remember to be patient.

3. Do not sell yourself short. Ask around. Talk to writers you know and respect. Don’t send your stuff to low-tier journals with obscenely high acceptance rates; you’re better than that! You’ll feel much more accomplished if a journal you respect takes your work than if a journal that takes almost everything does. Generally, I only submit to journals that have an acceptance rate of 5% or less. Duotrope is an excellent resource for this kind of information. It’s fifty dollars a year for a membership, but you get access to a lot of valuable information like acceptance rates, response times, and a really cool (and useful) submission tracker feature. However, if you can’t afford it, there is a poorman’s way of getting an idea of what tier a journal falls in. If you Google: “Duotrope Journal Title” (for example, “Duotrope Fifth Wednesday”), then you can see some of the information on a journal’s Duotrope page (the really good stuff is hidden unless you pay for an account). However, look at the left corner, by the title of the journal. See the little star with a number next to it? That’s how many users are tracking that particular journal’s listing. For context, at my last check, The Kenyon Review had 1,037 stars. Rat’s Ass Review had 36. My (rough) rule of thumb is that the higher number of stars correlates to a more successful, popular journal. This is not always the case, due to acceptance rates. Eunoia Review has 226 stars, but the acceptance rate is 25% (aka, too damn high). It’s not a perfect system, and I really do recommend getting a Duotrope account, but do your best. Ask around. Do some research. Poets & Writers is a good source, too. They have a literary magazines database that lists circulation numbers, aka, how many people are reading / subscribing. Very useful.

4. There are exceptions to the rule! Help your friends out. We are all trying to make it in the writing / publishing world. If your pals start a journal, and they ask you to send them something, do it! If you get a solicitation, that’s awesome! Do it! However, DON’T expect to get accepted to a journal just because you were solicited. And maybe don’t send your friend’s journal the poem that you’re sure is good enough for Tin House (unless, of course, your friend works at Tin House).

5. Always submit as much work as you can! This mostly pertains to poetry. If a journal asks for 3-5 poems, always send five! Your chances grow! This whole thing is just a numbers game, after all!

6. Keep careful records. Make an Excel sheet. Right now. Put in every piece you submit, and every journal each piece goes out to. I like to color code mine. Just make sure that YOU understand your chart. It is SO important to keep good records. Once you get an acceptance somewhere (and you will!), you need to be able to withdraw the piece from every other journal it is out at, and you’ll need to be able to do it in a timely manner. If you don’t, and ANOTHER journal ends up wanting to take the same piece, they’re going to feel super sour when you have to decline them, and you’re going to feel super salty, since this makes you look disorganized and unprofessional. Everybody makes mistakes, but try to avoid this one. You may think that you’ll never need to withdraw right away, since the idea of a piece getting accepted to TWO places is so foreign to you, but trust me, it does happen from time to time. Just keep good records and avoid the hassle.

7. Keep your cover letter simple. Please. If you’re trying to be funny in your cover letter, chances are you’re not funny. I have a cover letter that I copy and paste in every submission:

Dear Editors, The attached poems are for your consideration. They are unpublished. This is a simultaneous submission. Thank you for your time and effort. Charlotte Covey

See how simple! I also have a biographical statement that I paste below my cover letter, like so:

Dear Editors, The attached poems are for your consideration. They are unpublished. This is a simultaneous submission. Thank you for your time and effort. Charlotte Covey Biographical Note: Charlotte is from St. Mary's County, Maryland. Currently, she is an MFA candidate in Poetry at the University of Missouri - St. Louis. She has poetry published or forthcoming in journals such as The Normal School, Salamander Review, CALYX Journal, the minnesota review, and The Monarch Review, among others. In 2017, she was nominated for a Pushcart Prize. She is co-editor-in-chief of Milk Journal and an assistant editor for Natural Bridge.

Nothing fancy! Don’t make either your cover letter or your biographical note too long. Keep it short and simple! Only list your five best publications, and that’s my personal maximum. I know some people like to list their entire bibliography, but there is a point when your note just looks a little braggy. If you don’t have any publications, that’s okay! Say if you’re in school! Mention if you’re involved with a journal or your local writing scene! Even though I do genuinely believe that mentioning previous publications makes a difference to some editors (just my own, personal theory), journals also like fresh talent! If a journal accepts your piece, and it’s your first publication, that’s awesome! Everyone starts somewhere.

8. Don’t give up! Rejections happen. Writing is subjective. I probably received over fifty rejections before I got my first acceptance. That’s normal! Acting, singing, writing-- any creative field comes with a lot of rejection, so self-confidence is extremely important. When you get rejected (yes, when, not if) make sure to add that information to your records (VERY important, or you might accidentally send a journal a piece they’ve already rejected; I’ve done this once or twice-- OOPS!), and then delete the rejection off your Submittable page. We don’t need that kind of negativity in our lives!

9. Remember, submitting work is essentially a numbers game. Not everybody is as crazy as I am (at last count, I am out at one hundred eleven journals. Woof!), but don’t expect a success story if you’re only out at four or five journals at a time. My mentor and favorite professor, John A. Nieves, always told me that a good rule of thumb is to always have each of your polished pieces out at five journals. Really, I don’t think it matters too much how many journals each piece is out at, as long as you can keep track of it all. I’m a bit of a wild one, and I’ve been known to have one poem out at over twenty places at once. This is perfectly fine, AS LONG AS you keep meticulous records and don’t mind withdrawing the piece from twenty individual journals if it gets accepted (I have this down to a science now. Just give me a laptop and twenty minutes).

10. Stop obsessing. That’s hilarious, coming from me, but listen: you are never going to think a piece is perfect. If it is clear and proofread and polished, send it out. You can always keep revising it and have the final form in your first book :) Just don’t let obsessing over a piece not being “perfect” keep you from sending it out. You’d be surprised how many first drafts of mine ended up finding homes in respectable journals. And even then, I keep revising them! But if your piece gets rejected constantly, it may be a sign that you should consider tweaking some things. Again, writing is subjective. There’s a market for your work somewhere out there.

11. DO NOT post your unpublished work on Facebook. Don’t post it on your Tumblr or on Hello Poetry. This essentially makes the piece useless, publication-wise. Almost every journal wants First North American Serial Rights. Basically, this means they want credit for being the first people to publish your piece. Unfortunately, posting your work ANYWHERE online essentially means it is “published,” since the public now has access to it. A journal isn’t going to want a piece that everyone has already seen! Which leads me to my next point:

12. DO NOT SELF-PUBLISH!!!! Self-publishing is the kiss of death. You miss out on TONS of first book contests and awards, and journals and presses WILL judge you. Basically, self-publishing makes people think that no one would publish your work, so you decided to do it yourself. I am begging you not to self-publish. It is THE KISS OF DEATH. If you keep getting rejected, revise. Workshop. But DO NOT SELF-PUBLISH. It’s expensive, and generally, no one will end up buying your book anyway, since there isn’t a press to advertise / promote you. If you want your friends and family to see your work, just show them the next time you hang out. But please don’t self-publish. It is an overall bad idea. Please. Just be patient. Keep working. You’ll get there.

13. Get involved! Networking is so important for writers. Go to readings when you can. Read your own work when you can. Go to AWP, if you can afford it. Learn about the publishing world. Immerse yourself in it. Understand that as much as we like to think it is, writing is definitely not a solitary endeavor :)

Happy submitting! <3

Love, Charlotte

#journals #journal submissions #publishing #poetry #fiction #writers #creative writing

9 notes · View notes