Monthly Archives: September 2014

Reflections

Blacklisted

Leave a comment

Amjad Nasser was unable to physically come to NYU because he was detained at Heathrow in London. While there he was put through rigorous questioning to which the American homeland security agent who he was talking to over the phone already knew the answers to. Because he was on the blacklist as a result of some political agitation that his works caused, he was unable to fly to America as the American homeland security agent told him. American dominion presided on British soil. As Amjad put it in his essay on the matter, he was unable to come to New York, but corrupt government officials, thieves and drug lords can fly to New York. The injustices he faced need to be recognized by the community. I think that his speech through Skype relates to our class because he spoke through a new media technology, Skype. Without the invention of this technology, we would not have gotten to hear him speak and see the way he read his poetry so passionately. The way his body moved with his poems and the cadence in his voice all conveyed his devotion to his work.
Technology has increased the awareness of political dissent as it creates a widespread distribution of ideas. In Amjad’s case this had negative consequences and he was unable to fly to America because of the perceived threat of his ideas. Although Amjad was unable to physically come to NYU, I was still able to experience his poetic brilliance through Skype.

His novels and poems detail the riveting wars and divides among Arab nations. Specifically in his novel Land of No Rain, he describes what it is like to be an exile of a country and how one forms his identity through this. Being an in-betweener or a “ghost” who doesn’t fit in anywhere, the protagonist is forced to create his own new identity. Giving insight into the strict regimes in places such as Jordan, Amjad creates political sentiment while describing the effects of a split land. His poetry has inspired many to think outside the lines that they are used to. This led to a rise in questioning of authority. Amjad was put on the blacklist because he made people think. He made them question their authority and who they trusted the power to. He did not commit a crime or harm anybody, he simply made people think. How come our world has come to this where freedom of expression isn’t truly freedom?

 

Uncategorized

Provocations about What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly – Karen Kandelman

2 Comments

Ultimately what I was thinking about when reading What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly was that he made sense because he drew from many different systems to make analogies and explain his argument. I enjoyed reading his book because of the structure of explanation he used. This structure was essentially Kelly stating a definition of his argument and then trying to prove it through concrete examples. That was effective because he went to the root of the issue and held my hand by explaining everything thoroughly. Although, he has statements he makes that don’t feel fully backed up and therefore, at least for me, lose its power when trying to convince me. That’s essentially how I decided upon the provocations I was going to write about. I will include one idea that he brought up that is interesting and I agreed with and an idea that was provoking but that I found flaws with that perhaps were legitimate yet were irreconcilable for me.

The most striking concept that Kelly brings up is the comparability of technology and biological systems especially in terms of reproduction. He explains that the “technium can really only be understood as a type of evolutionary life” (45) and goes on to determine technology as a seventh kingdom of life. What I really found appealing about this notion is that it makes parallels between organic systems and technological ones. I never considered thinking about technology in this way where “computer scientists [are] using the principles of evolution to breed computer software” (9)  in order for programs to duplicate or self-assemble without people having to interfere in the system.  The example of the robot PR2 made at Stanford that could it has the “ability to find a power outlet and plug itself in” (11), essentially what the scientists have created is a code that makes the robot do this but it can make robots become to be self-sufficient. Kelly states that before technology – computer programs – was “merely parroting what we told it, but now it is more like a very complex organism that often follows its own urges”(13).

Whereas, I don’t really believe or I am not fully convinced of Kelly’s argument that “the greatest difference between the evolution of the born and the evolution of the made is that the species of technology, unlike the species in biology, almost never go extinct” (51). Although, he tries to prove his hypothesis through his categorical investigation into what is still being produced from the century’s catalogue of inventions and is successful, I just don’t want to believe him.  The concept of obsolescence of technology is real, especially as new digital and mechanical technologies are invented. Having to throw away a charger because they have made a new one for the phone you just purchased, is a real complication of technology. I don’t agree with the fact that technologies like steam powered cars are useful and should be considered not extinct, even if they can still be produced. In my view, if it isn’t being used popularly or regularly and is just ineffective compared to other new technologies, it should be considered extinct. However, I great point is brought up by Kelly when he mentions that there is a “virtue in doing things without oil-fed machinery” (55). This brings me to a point that was brought up in the introduction, that technology can obviously be beneficial in connecting our society and making us collaborate but it can also be detrimental. Now, there are many movements to regress – to use less technology – in certain areas, in order to make the negative consequences diminish, which includes urban and organic farming.

My discussion question ultimately is: What does technology want? Why is the title of this book what it is, and does it lay out what technology wants?  I watched Kevin Kelly’s 2005 TedTalk and he tried to explain it by saying that “It’s a way to explore possibilities and opportunities and create more. And it’s actually a way of playing the game, of playing all the games. That’s what technology wants.” In the presentation, he refers to the infinite game and how technology helps us redefine ourselves and this questioning is constant and shouldn’t stop. Do you agree that what technology wants to create more opportunities or is there another definition for what technology is seeking? 

Here is the link to the TedTalk, enjoy:

https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_kelly_on_how_technology_evolves/transcript?language=en

Reflections

Kelly Provocations – Scarlett Curtis

3 Comments

At the beginning of section two of What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly talks about the excess of objects that the majority of people living in affluent (often described as ‘western’) civilisations are in possession of. He cites a study that photographer Peter Menzel organised where he photographed families in less affluent countries standing outside their houses surrounded by the entirety of the possessions that they owned. Menzel discovered that ‘The average number of objects owned by one of these families was 127’ (77) which is in stark contrast to the 10,000 that Kelly predicts his family has in their house. Kelly then talks about the popular statement that ‘more money does not bring more  happiness’ (78) and how increasing evidence has found this to be untrue. He cites studies that have proved high income earners to be happier than people living in lower earning con tries and summarises his argument with this statement;

We don’t find happiness in more gadgets and experiences. We do find happiness in having some control of our time and work, a chance for real leisure, in the escape for the uncertainties of war, poverty and corruption, and in a chance to pursue individual freedoms – all of which come with increased affluence. (78).

I found this section of the book extremely interesting as it’s a line of thought I strongly agree with. It angers me a lot when people from high earning families who have lived their lives in affluent countries talk about how they wish their lives would be ‘simpler’ and that actually people who live in small houses without any technology are ‘happier’ and ‘enjoy life’ to a greater extent. I’m not denying that there are complications that come with increased technology but the simple idea that these complications would outweigh the benefits seems ridiculous to me. If you asked a family who’s children are dying of malaria if they would rather live somewhere where they could drive to a hospital to receive quick and efficient medical care, they would laugh at you for even considering it a question. And if you gave a girl who has been denied an education the opportunity to wikipedia anything in the entire world, it would seem like an act of god. Discussion Question: Do you agree with this or can you think of a scenario in which the disadvantages of technology are greater than the advantages? 

Another part of section two that I found very interesting was in Chapter 9 when Kelly talks about the triad of factors pushing technology forward. He argues that the evolution of technology depends on three different factors. The structural/inevitable – ‘the basic laws of physics and emergent self-organisation (that) drive evolution toward certain forms’ (182). The historical/contingent – the ‘accidents and circumstantial opportunities (that) bend the course of evolution this way and that’ (182). And finally the functional/adaptive – ‘the relentless engine of optimisation and creative innovation that continually solves the problems of survival’ (182). Essentially he is saying that while humans do not have control over certain aspects of the evolution of technology they do have control over quite a large amount of it;

We can nudge the system to maximise equality or to favour excellence or to foster innovation. We can bias the invention of the industrial assembly line either toward optimisation of output or toward optimisation of worker skills; those two paths yield different cultures. (184).

The reason I brought up this point from the book is that it reminded me of an earlier post I wrote regarding The Machine Stops. In this post I argued that society would never end up the way that it was portrayed in The Machine Stops because humans would not let technology develop that way. Kevin Kelly’s statement certainly validates that my previous argument is technically possible but I guess the real question is: If humans do have a choice in the way that technology develops do you think they will use their ‘power’ for good or for evil or just to invent more devices on which we can look at pictures of cats? 

Bibliography:

Kelly, Kevin. What Technology Wants. Penguin Books 2010. Print.

Reflections

Inevitable Innovations

2 Comments

In What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly proposes that the way evolution occurred was inevitable, and therefore technology’s path of development was inevitable. He is very convincing in his proposal of inevitable evolution in nature. He utilizes Australia as an example of an isolated place where evolution occurred parallel too, as opposed to being integrated with, the other continents: “Saber-canine teeth are found in both the extinct marsupial thylacosmilus and the extinct saber-toothed cat. Marsupial lions had retractable claws like feline cats” (106). Kelly also uses the example of the triceratops that “evolved beaks similar to those of both parrots and octopus and squid,” even though it lived in a totally different time and environment than those animals (107). This evidence of all forms of life, despite their different settings and living conditions, are on a seemingly predetermined path of development. Kelly is very convincing in his argument, and I am fascinated by his application of this principle to technology. New innovations often occur at the same time in slightly varying forms, because “when the necessary web of supporting technology is established, then the next adjacent technological step seems to emerge as if on cue” (138). I absolutely agree with his claim that certain technologies were invented at their respective special boiling points of sorts, when the conditions were just right and the world had a use for them at the time.

I do not believe this destiny of technology applies to the specifics of stories in the media. Kelly uses J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter series as an example of his claim that certain ideas are inevitable. There are many basic similarities between the Harry Potter series and other books and comics published before J.K. Rowling’s novels. Kelly claims that “Multiple invention happens all the time in the arts as well as technology […] strange as it sounds, stories of boy wizards in magical schools […] are inevitable at this point in Western culture” (146). I do acknowledge that all ideas for creative works are either derivatives of previous works or are bound to be similar to other works in one way or another. The human brain can only imagine so much. However, to claim that something as specific as the Harry Potter series was an inevitable cultural development is a far reach. The light bulb, another example Kelly uses as an invention invented multiple, almost simultaneous, is an extremely influential part of technological history that changed the way humans live. However, while the Harry Potter series is incredibly influential in culture, it is not such a powerful creation that it changed the way we live and was an inevitable part of our human history. For Kelly to claim otherwise would be to contradict himself in the “Convergence” chapter: “the specifics of any invention are not inevitable” (138). Harry Potter, and any other story, is far too specific to be lumped in with inevitable, essential inventions like the light bulb.

Where do we draw the line between what creations are inevitable, and what is a product of the creator’s specific background and imagination?

Reflections, Uncategorized

Kelly Provocations

2 Comments

In What Technology Wants, Kevin Kelly further explains the “money doesn’t buy happiness” cliche. He claims that “for the past 30 years the conventional wisdom has been that once a person achieves a minimal standard of living, more money does not bring more happiness” (78). However a study done at the Wharton School at University of Pennsylvania defies this conventional wisdom and states that a higher income brings increased satisfaction. Kelly interprets this study as money doesn’t necessarily bring satisfaction, but more money means more choices. Humans find happiness in having control over their lives. If a person can afford the newest updated gadget, they will buy it. Even though new is not always better, and often comes with glitches, very few people ever go back to old technologies that still work perfectly fine. I think this is true to a degree. Humans always want the next best thing, but at the same time, we don’t always like change. Kelly also explains that there are two senses of inevitable. In the first sense, “an invention merely has to exist once” (176). In this sense all technology is inevitable because someone will eventually create it. In the second sense, it cannot just merely exist but “must contain a large-scale momentum and proceed on its own determination” (176). Things will be invented, but most will not work very well. Those that do work will be imagined many times before they actually come into existence. The picture phone, for example, was first sketched in 1887, working prototypes were created in 1938, and was sold commercially by AT&T in 1964. The phone was taken off the market after 10 years because not enough people were interested in it. Fast forward 60 years, the picture phone is back and incredibly popular. I agree with the idea of all technology being inevitable. Ideas will bounce around and may not always work, but there will always be new technological innovations. Why is it that we as humans are so inclined to have new, even when old works fine or better?

Reflections

Kelly provocation

2 Comments

One of the arguments that Kevin Kelly makes about the growth of technology is that its growth is killing nature. He is right to claim that the industrial processes of first-world countries are more efficient in the destruction of the environment. However, I have to disagree that technological growth can only result in such devastation. Kelly points to the fact that “lumber is taken by cutting down forests” (194). These lumber companies do have the ability to clear entire forests, but large corporations also have the capacity to give back to the environment. First-world countries have the wealth and the technology to replace a portion of the forests that are cut down. Some third-world countries that only practice slash and burn agriculture effectively put down their forests permanently. This argument that first-world countries relying on technology can have the same ecological footprint as less technologically evolved countries reaches over to the other examples outlined by Kelly such as “lakes poisoned, rivers dammed, jungles flattened, air dirtied…” (195). The truth is that even those countries without technology can still have disastrous effects. Disease and starvation are more prevalent in those poorer countries for a reason. Their pollution problems are born from the fact that they are incapable of giving back to the environment due to technological constraints (knowledge/machinery that can help with farming or safer production practices) while the first-world problems come from the excess in which they use resources.

Though I disagree about Kelly’s assumptions on environmentalism and its relation to technology, I do agree with his stance on humanity’s relation to technology. Kelly believe that we are at a “second tipping point” where “the technium’s ability to alter us exceeds our ability to alter the technium” (197). He adds that the growth of technology will lead to “competition between Homo sapiens and machine” (197). I find this to be true because of how ignorant today’s youth is towards the past. Many kids and preteens these days will have full knowledge of social media websites, the newest smart phones and the most powerful game consoles. However, they lack the practical knowledge of how to survive without technology. With Google maps we have lost our ability to navigate on our own. With search engines we have lost our ability to conduct traditional research. Even something as simple as a laundry machine has left us without knowledge to clean our clothes ourselves. As we become more familiar with new technologies, we become more ignorant of the simpler devices we created in the past. Kelly is right in the fact that modern advancements often dictate what we learn and how we operate in life.

Discussion question: Given that modern machinery and computers can outperform people in many ways, does there still exist one human trait that machines cannot replicate?

Reflections

REFLECTION ON KELLY’S ‘WHAT TECHNOLOGY WANTS’

2 Comments

In Chapter 5 of What Technology Wants by Kevin Kelly, I found the “choice of returning to our early state” particularly interesting. “Citizens in developing countries can merely take a bus back to their villages, where they can live with age-old traditions and limited choice. They will not starve. In a similar spirit of choice, if you believe that the peak of existence was reached in Neolithic times, you can camp out in a clearing in the Amazon. If you think the golden age was in the 1890s, you can find a farm among the Amish. We have lots of opportunity to revisit the past, but few people really want to live there.” (80). The urban city is the land of choice and technology. As Kelly states, they are “technological artifacts” (81). We are so accustomed to a technology-based society that it is almost impossible to imagine our lives without the ease and comfort we derive from it. When I was a junior in high school, we went on a camping trip to a hill station in India. It was a remote part of town, so we had no access to the Internet. Even our phones and laptops were confiscated. It was certainly refreshing to experience the simplistic life of the area, but soon all of us were agitated and restive to use our hand held devices or use the Internet. We wanted to check our Facebook profiles, our twitter pages and so on. Soon the once refreshing and charming hill station became a place of nightmare because we could not live without modern technology. Thus, although one may criticize industrious cities with “rapacious appetites for energy materials and attention,” life in the city is considered the most desirable as people voluntarily “leave the balm of a village and squat in a smelly, leaky hut in a city slum” (82). With cities, individuals also experience freedom not present in a rural society and are confronted with a vast range of choices and opportunities for their development. In short, the “city as a whole is wonderful technological invention” (84).

In addition, the theory of inevitability is also interesting and thought provoking. The theory states that when “the necessary web of supporting technology is established, then the next adjacent technological step seems to emerge as if on cue” (138). However, I find this idea very problematic as it disregards human ingenuity and the efforts of great inventors such as Nikola Tesla, Edison, Marconi and so on. In Chapter 7, Kelly provides the example of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter. Before Harry Potter was released in 1997, several versions of the story were published by authors such as Neil Gaiman, who worte a comic book about a dark-haired English who discovers he is a wizard on his 12th birthday, and Jane Yolen, who wrote about a boy named Henry who attends a magical school for young wizards and must vanquish an evil wizard (146). Although there are certain similarities between these stories and that if Harry Potter, Rowling’s work cannot be discredited and written off as a mere inevitability. The intricate and particular details of the world of Harry Potter have been created and written by none other than Rowling (146) On the other hand, even though I find the theory of inevitability flawed and problematic, I concede to the fact that it highlights a broad framework of future technologies based on existing inventions.

DISCUSSION QUESTION: If, according to the notion of inevitability, most modern inventions and discoveries are either improvements or based on supporting technologies, is it possible to invent technology independent of past ideas?

Announcements, Assignments

Midterm Assignment : Device Narratives

Leave a comment

Device Narrative

https://wp.nyu.edu/licastro_fall14/?p=513

In your “Digital Literacy Narrative” you explored the writing technologies that have shaped your literacy practices. For your midterm, you should identify one tool from your timeline to investigate on a deeper level. In order to do this, you should focus on the wider impact of this technology in terms of political and social issues. Consider, for example, how Jason Ponti isolates instances when interface design shaped writing practices in “How Authors Write.” Ponti uses historical examples (such as Baker’s use of footnotes) to argue that modern writers are not embracing the potential of new media. Similarly, in “The Geology of Media,” Jussi Parikka exposes the environmental impact of digital devices through the lens of new media evolution. It is your goal to develop an argument about the technology you are investigating through research and critical thinking.

Potential lines of inquiry include:

  • Labor
  • Gender/race
  • Environmental impact
  • Planned obsolescence
  • Cognition/attention
  • Privacy/surveillance
  • Anything you find interesting (and have evidence to prove)

As you are reading Kevin Kelly while composing this piece, I want you to imagine your audience to be the typical Wired magazine reader. Therefore, your reader already has an interest and familiarity with new media, but wants more information than a basic Google search can provide. Your audience seeks a balanced approach: intelligent critique in a relatable, digestible voice.

Our library visit will help you structure your research process. I require you to use at least three sources, properly cited, and archived in our Zotero group library.

You will post your draft on 10/14, and bring in a paper copy on 10/15. You must post the revised digital version on our site on 10/17. Heed Ponti’s advice, and think about using our digital medium to your advantage when composing your piece (for examples see: http://digitalmateriallabor.org/final-project/)

This project is worth 100 points, and will be graded on the following criteria:

 

RHETORICAL ELEMENTS [1]
Purpose The author establishes a purpose of the overall story early on and also maintains the focus on that purpose throughout the work. As in print-based composition, the purpose may be stated or implied.
Audience The choice of different media assets as well as how they are organized and presented shows that the student is aware of the audience/viewer. When asked, the student can describe how the subject matter and the selection, organization, and organization of the media assets fit a particular audience. The piece is written with a clear sense of the audience with a tone that will suit that audience; other media assets also appropriate and effective from an audience point of view.
Organization The overall structure of the story/argument and placement of assets in that structure are effective. There is a good beginning, middle, and end. The amounts of time and emphasis given to different parts or issues make sense.
Logos, Pathos, Ethos The work is intellectually significant, emotionally engaging, or appealing to the audience in other ways—based on its subject matter and purpose.
CONTENT
Subject matter Content is engaging — viewer is left with thought-provoking ideas.
Written elements The student worked diligently in drafting, revising, editing, and proofreading the piece with a particular focus on conciseness and precision. The “story” or subject matter of the piece is not only interesting/significant in itself but also reflects that the student has learned the content of the course.  The text serves as a logical framework for the rest of the media. The student has integrated external information, cited sources, and fulfilled other requirements of the assignment.
PROCESS
The student has been diligent with planning the project, doing research on the subject, creating or finding appropriate media assets, drafting and revising/editing their writing, effectively integrating media assets, appropriately referencing external source within the text and documenting them at the end of the work, and if the work is supposed to be presented before class, his or her presentation or performance is effective. If the work is done in groups, members of the group have each worked effectively in planning, coordinating, and contributing to group’s work.
MEDIA
Music and sound effects Voiceover, background music and other audio assets are layered effectively so that one medium is heard most clearly at a time. They are rhetorically effective; meaningfully integrated with other media; and have an effective volume, tone, and tempo.
Still images Images create a distinct atmosphere or tone that matches different parts of the story. The images add rhetorical effectiveness and symbolic and/or metaphoric meaning to the work.
Transition and other visual effects Transition and other effects created through editing of media do not just produce “cool” effects but are done meaningfully. The effects are seamless and unobtrusive.
Video Videos used in the work contain recognizable and meaningful images and movements, support the meaning of the story logically as well as aesthetically, do not take unnecessary artistic license, do not have distracting or unwanted visual information or background, are paced appropriately, and do not compromise relevance for the sake of interest or for technical reasons
Pacing and economy The media are presented neither too fast nor too slow; there is rhetorically effective increase and decrease of speed in the presentation of materials. Since digital “stories” should be short, the student has saved time and communicated the message in a precise and concise manner. No words, images, or sounds are redundant or rhetorical out of sync.
SYNTHESIS
Coherence All the elements and parts of the work rhetorically fit together and are effectively presented within the overall logical framework. For instance, images and sound effects that are meant to illustrate and enhance a verbal statement do not conflict with the text or with each other.
ACADEMIC CONVENTIONS
Credits The student has cited external sources in the voice over and in any visually represented text or media. There is a citation page at the end.
Language issues The student has paid sufficient attention to grammar, spelling, mechanics, and other linguistic issues in the voiceover, captions, and other places where verbal language is used.

 

 

[1]Adapted from: http://www2.bgsu.edu/departments/english/cconline/winter2013/digital_s/rubric.html

 

Announcements, Reflections

Kevin Kelly Provocations

Leave a comment

For Kevin Kelly’s What Technology Wants, you will be leading the class discussion in two groups. If your last name begins with A-K, you are Group 1  and if your last name begins with M-V you are in Group 2 for the Kevin Kelly “fishbowls”. I will explain this activity in class.

Group 1 will need to post a response to the first section (this includes the text from Part 1: Origins and Part 2: Imperatives in the book) of Kevin Kelly’s book by September 29th at midnight . This response should highlight two main points that you must summarize and then analyze for the class (hint, use direct quotes). I suggest focusing on one point you agree with, and one you find problematic. Your post must end in a discussion question for your classmates. If you are in group 2, you must respond to at least two of these discussion questions by class time on Wednesday.

Group 2 will then post on the second half of the book (Part 3: Choices, and Part 4: Directions) by Oct 3rd at midnight. Group 1 must respond to two of those provocations by class time on the 6th.

Remember, I have posted the grading rubric for your posts here: https://wp.nyu.edu/licastro_fall14/tag/rubric/

This is reflected in our adjusted schedule.

Announcements, Resources

Advertising Week at Gallatin

Leave a comment

Here is the event I mentioned in class on Wednesday:

http://gallatin.nyu.edu/utilities/events/2014/10/prototypeyourlife.html

Prototype Your Life: Advertising Alumni Panel

Oct 2, 2014 | 6:30 PM-8:30 PM

Advertising Week

Hear from marketing and advertising trailblazers and learn how to focus your passion and sell your talents—and your Gallatin degree–and discover what it takes to be a 21st century Don Draper.

This lively panel discussion will be moderated by Professor Stephen Duncombe and will feature:

Mallory Blair (BA ’10)
Named to this years Forbes 30 under 30 and Business Insider’s top 50 PRs, Mallory started her own firm fresh out of Gallatin four years ago. Since cofounding Small Girls PR, the firm has become the agency of record for technology companies such as GE and Karma, as well as the promotional arm for fashion companies such as Ann Taylor. It has never used a wire, rarely writes press releases, and never sends blanket pitches, relying instead on creative story telling and out of the box partnerships with bloggers, writers and founders. You can keep in touch with her @yourpalmal.

James Del (BA ’08)
James is the Executive Director of Gawker Media’s in-house creative and events department, Studio@Gawker. As a lifelong believer in oversharing on the web, in 2008 he joined Gawker Media Group as employee #2 in Advertising Operations. From there he made the transition to sales & marketing and eventually worked his way up to Advertising Director, overseeing all of Gawker Media’s most notable advertising partnerships and creative executions. Prior to Gawker, James consulted a variety of digital marketing agencies, including Mr Youth, Mekanism, Kadium and The Intelligence Group. He graduated from NYU’s Gallatin School of Individualized Study and once dressed up as a lion on MTV’s TRL, but never mind that.

Rachel Tipograph (BA ’09)
Rachel considered herself amongst the digerati since the moment she became an eBay poweruser at 13. Forbes listed Rachel as one of its “30 under 30 Who Are Changing The World” and Business Insider named her one of “New York Tech’s Coolest People.” After being the Global Director of Digital and Social Media at Gap, Rachel traveled the world for 100 days and is now building a media company based in NYC.

Farryn Weiner (Tisch BFA ’06, GAL ’09)
Farryn heads global social strategy for fashion brand Michael Kors Worldwide, overseeing social, editorial and digital marketing and media strategy. She led the development of the first Instagram ad ever, which ran in November. Weiner previously headed up social media, editorial content and marketing strategy for Jetsetter.com at Gilt Groupe. She’s been a panelist at SXSW, Internet Week, Social Media Week and Luxury Daily Conference, among others. Accolades include Top 10 Most Stylish Social Media Gurus in Stylecaster; 140 Most Influential Twitter Feeds of 2013 in Time; and 25 Women to Watch (Nov. 2013) in Luxury Daily.

Date + Time Oct 2, 2014 | 6:30 PM-8:30 PM
Location Jerry H. Labowitz Theatre for the Performing Arts
Category Alumni Events
Contact Lauren at lnisenson@nyu.edu / 212.992.8982
Open to Public? yes
RSVP

RSVP