The New Media Reader

 This book was arranged very differently then the other assigned readings. This book consists of different essays by different theorists.

            The first section of reading talks about the history and progression of the computer. It is so interesting to be able to read about the background of technology that we use daily, having heretofore not thought “twice” about its history. Janet H. Murray meticulously describes the background and the development of the internet, search engines, games, and “anything else” that had to do with the development of the computer and its counterparts.  I was extremely interested in Murray’s statement:  “The critics of technology are an important part of the development of a new medium because they challenge us to identify more clearly what we find so compelling about it, why we are so drawn to shape this new clay objects that have not existed before (8).”  Although I have not previously studied the theory or the history of the computer, I have grown up in the age and time of computers and have always used some type of advanced technological equipment.

            It is particularly interesting to think about the theorists of the 1960’s and 1970’s molding the population’s views and opinions of the new and future technology entering the public’s soon-to-be-everyday-life.  Whereas, I was born into an age where computers were already “second nature” and accepted by society.

            Marshall McLuhan writes much about society and the process of technology entering and involving itself into the activities of society.  “Cotton and oil, like radio and TV, become fixed charges on the entire psychic life of the community. And this pervasive fact created the unique cultural flavor of any society (209).”  McLuhan believes that technology is “extensions” of us and that all technology has its predecessors. McLuhan follows the idea of predecessors: “The content of writing is speech, written word is the content of print, and print is the content of the telegraph (203).” It is important to see the time of and the entrance of these technological advancements into the public and to see the way society then reacts to these advancements.  McLuhan believes that people are comfortable with the past and afraid of what is going to come in the future, which thereby creates fear: Fear of new technologies and the fear of what is to subsequently result from these technologies. 

            Experimentation with the technologies has a lot to do with the advancement of technology and its relationship to the art world. “In the same way as a scientific experiment can never fail, this experiment in art could never fail (213).” This quote really resonated with me as it confirms that experimentation in the development of science is never a failure and, likewise, the implications of experimentation with art should also not be considered a failure. I think it is extremely important to not only keep the concept of experimentation in mind while working in the field of art but also to adopt it to the creation of art.  Sometimes, in my own work, I have been scared of constant experimentation while in the midst of the process of producing my art work.  My fear becomes that I will ruin the piece of art that I am then working on. Instead, I should adopt the theory that experimentation helps both me and the process itself and therefore the end-result.  I should not become obsessed with the potential outcome of the art work created by my self-imposed doubt while experimenting during the creating of the piece of art. 

            John Cage wrote, “the technical problems involved in any single project tend to reduce the impact of the original idea, but in being solved they produce a situation different than anyone could have pre-imagined (215).” This quote also helps me feel better about how I look at my own art and validates my own search for excellence through experimentation and the changes of direction occurring during the creative process. 

            Before I try to tackle any new art project, I try to conceive the concept and plan-out what I want to compose. I want to use technology and not have technology use me. Yet, since I am often dealing with new programs and advanced technology, there always exists an element of the “unknown.” An individual artist can choose either of two options: to totally disregard the “unknown” or allow the “unknown” to help develop his or her piece further.  Previously, I used to try to disregard and not use the “unknown” as part of the creative process, but now that I am dealing with more technological programs in fields varying from audio to video to print, I try to release those “unknowns” into the piece so that whatever unknown journey is taken can help strengthen my final creation and take me and it down roads previously unexplored.  In other words, although the search or evolution that takes place in creating the piece of art started out in a definitive manner, it becomes detouring and meandering as the work progresses.  Both the process and the ultimate result itself evolves or develops during the journey of creating the piece of art.  Creating becomes “experimentation” at its best.

the medium is the message

The Medium and the Message

 

            Any reader will recognize that this book is more than just a book:  it is a piece of art in and of itself. With the turn of every page, the book becomes increasingly more and more beautiful and more and more interesting in its content.  The size of the book is small  which provides the reader a sense of intimacy and easy handling.  The reader gets a peaceful personal experience as he or she reads through each well-thought-out page. McLuhan uses metaphors and numerous examples to pursue and explain his strongly held beliefs. He is a truly original free thinker who approaches his subject matter with enthusiasm. Overall, McLuhan believes that the media is an “extension” of our human bodies and our minds.

            McLuhan starts off by talking about the medium as the process. He states that, “electronic technology is reshaping and restructuring patterns of social interdependence and every aspect of our personal life (8).” I agree with this and am reminded of how far electronic technology has come and where our electronic technology is today: “Cyborg level ones” with our computers and cell phones permanently attached. 

            Although this book was published in 1967, McLuhan was able to anticipate and predict what a significant impact technology would have on our total society and culture; it is now part and parcel of our entire social interdependence.

            McLuhan continually writes about how man has viewed the world and how these views were and are transformed by the adoption of new media. The wonderful aspect about McLuhan’s approach is that McLuhan does not talk about technology negatively but rather as a positive part of life: McLuhan is uplifting.

            McLuhan talks about the medium as the process and how the medium itself really refers to art and how the artist works or creates.  McLuhan is an advocate for the artist and for artists to offer explanations as to what is happening in and to our culture and how that culture affects us all.  McLuhan believes that the artist is often not “well-adjusted” to culture which is caused by the artist not being able to accept and go along with the current trends.  “A strange bond often exists among anti-social types in their power to see environments as they really are.” I agree with this completely; the artist is confronting situations and making statements  regarding society, culture and its impact on individuals and vice versa.  If one is involved in interpreting situations around them, it is difficult to confront it totally subjectively or objectively.  It often takes someone, i.e., an artist who is removed or out of the “mainstream” to obtain sufficient distance from that which is being observed.  This “distancing” allows for a different perspective and this in essence is the artistic process.

            McLuhan often refers to past and present and how those two interact. He sees the past as comfortable and the present, which is new, causing problems and confusion. He perceives a huge difference between the pre-TV and the post-TV generations. He considers the post-television crowd as more earnest, “more dedicated.”  McLuhan believes that “Television evolves the sense of active, exploratory, touch which involves all the senses simultaneously, rather than that of sight alone (123).” He views television as not working as a background, but rather it engaging you, in order to create a full experience. Even though people do use television as a background, that is clearly not its intent; it is meant to be watched. I love the cartoon on page 128; it has a couple watching television and the caption says, “When you consider television’s awesome power to educate, aren’t you thankful it doesn’t.”  I believe this is a misconception about television, as we are definitely learning from it good or bad; although we often are not utilizing television as much as an educational learning device as we probably could.  Television is a powerful educational tool.

            McLuhan writes that the environment also has much to do with the actual message.  “Environments are not passive wrappings, but are, rather, active processes which are invisible (69).” McLuhan believes that we build a preconceived notion from our surroundings and our surroundings effect how we feel and how we see things.  Artists make counter-environments or anti-environments which help make things clearer from the artist’s perspective and therefore ultimately clearer to our culture and society.

            I love McLuhan, not only for what he has provided as his message, but also  because he looks at the artist as almost a “godlike” figure.  He is the first theorist that we have read, thus far, that really puts the artist on a pedestal. This is evident in both his writings and also in the way he purposely presents his book as a piece of art: The font choice, the images, and how it reads. In an interview recited in the book, McLuhan says that he is “neither an artist nor a scientist”; but I suspect that he is just a “great thinker,” and what could be more “artistic” than that.  McLuhan comes full circle:  Let’s do the math:  Thinking equals art equals medium equals message.

 

 

 

Man vs Machine

 This book was written by a collective of five artists of various specializations (computer graphics and web design, film/video, photography, text art, book art, and performance art) and is dedicated to exploring the intersections between art, technology, radical politics, and critical theory.  I will explore several areas discussed in the book and give some personal reactions.

The book starts off talking about our culture’s obsession with management systems and its impacts ranging from production, urban-environments, leisure activities, expressions, and the public’s increased isolation and alienation. The book determines that we are a culture of both habit and how management impacts upon our society.

The collective of five artists termed the word: “pancapitalism” (production, consumption, and order) when talking about the public body being invaded by the consequences of technology. The book explains ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) and RSA (Repressive State Apparatus) are reliant on complex technology in order to stay in control and to remain effective.  The RSA performs lots of mapping and surveying of territories and populations. However, once the RSA determines through its observations that a population is exposed, the RSA then does not want to be involved. 

“Computers, the internet, and communication satellites are examples of communication technology that lost some of or all of their intrinsic value as RSA systems, and hence no longer had to be kept monopolized (19).” The book points out that RSA likes to keep their technology hidden or out-of-sight during peace time.  I found this point very interesting and yet counter-intuitive to what one would expect. The book went on to talk about how during peace time there is no cause for RSA to celebrate as the RSA wants to keep the announcement of new developments and new weapons quiet and away from the public, because the RSA feels that it is not good for the public to know that these new weapons and developments even exist. Yet, the public has an increasing desire to be aware of new and complex technology.  I personally agree that the public wants to be aware of all of the newest forms of technology including weapons and military developments.

The book informs the reader that companies, like NASA, use a robotic walker, Dante, to record events and collect scientific data (15). Dante also was used to help develop software for other robots. Robots, androids, and artificial intelligence machines all now exist and are currently being used in many adaptations. These machines are not made from human organics. Yet, Cyborgs and virtual consciousness are very much dependent on humans to create the commands and to develop the actual interfacing of the machines. 

 I was intrigued by much of the information regarding scientific adaptations contained within this book. An example of a very interesting use discussed was how in the 1930’s and 1940’s a shopper could X-ray their own feet to make sure that their shoes fit correctly.  Although this proved hazardous because of the danger of radiation, I wish that there was something similarly used today. 

  I was also very interested in the section, “military and civilian cyborgs.”  The military section explained that “soldiers are no longer soldiers; now they are weapons’ systems (27).”  Later on in this section, it was explained that the military believes that these new developments have created a “happy moment” in time for them. I enjoyed reading about the discussion of cyborgs; the section refers to a first phased civilian cyborg as an individual who is normally equipped with a lap-top computer and cell phone. I believe that I qualify as one of the first phase civilian cyborgs as do many of my friends.

 The section that I was most interested in was the one about drugs which are supposed to normalize behavior and affect behavior in social contexts. The book spoke of anti-depressants and ADD and ADHD anxiety and stress relievers. The drugs, more often then not, have side effects that are counter-productive.  Also, it was pointed out that it is hard to make and use these chemical interventions because various symptoms can be so wide- spread and different.  Yet, the pharmaceutical industry is more profitable today then ever-before, even though, it quite often is accused of over-prescribing these very same drugs.

 The book also spoke of “smart” drugs which I had never heard of before. These are drugs that contain natural supplements that are supposed to enhance memory, stamina, immune systems, and general health. These smart drugs help bring the body back to supernormal.  It was also pointed out that the drugs like steroids, cocaine, weight loss pills, and pain killers can be extremely counterproductive and hazardous to one’s health and even create addiction.  The weight loss pills have become a huge industry that is closely related to the cosmetic and hygiene industries. Overall, all drugs are intended to “normalize” the individual.

 I was not as interested in or captivated by the “conception” or the “eugenicists” sections. However, I was intrigued by one remark: “Domestic togetherness in the middle-class family has nearly ceased, and children spend more time with their socializing-education services and mass media then with significant others (123).”  After reading this section, one concludes that we are placing children in all-day daycare and loosing the valuable and necessary interaction between parents and their child.  I suspect muchof this has to do with how we set priorities and with the differences included in socioeconomic classes.

Clearly, the continuing intersecting of technology and society creates positives and negatives.  However, when radical politics and critical theory is then superimposed upon that intersection, the interpretation of what is positive and what is negative becomes more complex and difficult to understand.  Machines are complex; people are complex.  We should not expect to find simplicity in an increasingly complex world.

DU Clarion

Who is the Author?

 

“Who is the author ?” is a question that constantly comes up in contemporary culture and in contemporary art discussions. This question certainly comes up regularly in all of my classes. So, “Who is the author?”  This question is one that I don’t think will ever truly be answered to everyone’s satisfaction.  Lev Manovich looks into this topic extensively while examining: collaboration, remixing, sampling, and open sourcing.

Manovich writes about “collaboration” and how it is natural to work together in groups because people do have similar interests and goals. Collaboration itself builds a “social culture.”  Due to common interests, people come together to start a “project” or a “series of projects” which consequently helps form working “networks.” These “networks” allow collaboration and the easy exchange of ideas.  The “networks” have helped build our contemporary culture. 

Yet, collaboration ultimately causes the intersection of many different facets to timely come together, but most importantly:  the author and the next user. The author creates the work, but she/he never really knows exactly what the next user is going to make, create or produce;  therefore, the result cannot really be called a “collaboration”. Yet, ironically the author does in fact create the “tool” that the next user takes or uses to then evolve it into their own next creation.  Sometimes, the author “allows” the next user to feel like the “real artist” or the “originator” by letting him/her select from several menus.  However, due to this relatively effortless interactivity of new media, “miscommunication” can easily take place. 

Manovich provides an interesting example of dealing with this predictable “miscommunication.” He writes that film producers have started using focus groups in order to assist them in editing their films to make sure that the narrative is comprehendible. Using the “feedback”  of the focus groups allows the editors to re-edit the film work in order to make sure the film reaches its full potential.  Interestingly and ironically, even the edit could be seen as a “collaborative work” between focus groups and film producers.

The definition of “remixing” has become diffused over recent years.  “Remixing” has been traditionally used throughout the DJ culture. Remixing became a standard practice when multi-track mixing became readily available. Throughout the years, the term has become broader and refers to any “reworking” of an “original” piece of music.

In the last several years, people have tried “remixing” in other diverse contemporary mediums. The “remixing” becomes complicated, particularly with copyright issues, when the “remixing” can be interpreted as theft or stealing of another’s work.  Interesting points get raised when filmmakers, visual artists, photographers, architects and Web designers all “remix” existing prior works, but do not openly admit it (5).  The term that is being used for these types of circumstances is “appropriation.”  Although, this term was originally used in the “art world” context, where it was commonly applied to post-modern artists, it is now being broadly used to apply to all types of visual media works.  Manovich believes that “remixing” is a better term than “appropriation” because it refers to or communicates “reworking” older or prior works. I personally agree with Manovich. 

 

“Sampling” helps create collages. “We can say that with sampling technology, the practices of montage and collage that were always central to twentieth century culture, became industrialized (6).” Manovich believes that the terms “montage” and “collage” come from “literary” culture and should not be expanded to describe other medias such as electronic music. However, I believe that the term “collage” should in fact be used to describe electronic music, because electronic music has traditionally been created like a “collage.”

With all of these above-referenced ideas combined: “collaboration”, “remixing”, “sampling”, and “appropriation”, modern technology has prolifically created “open sourcing.” “Open sourcing” allows people to further develop what others have already done simply by changing codes. Yet, “open sourcing” leads to licensing issues which become applicable to the rights and responsibilities of the modifier.

I personally believe that dealing with the issues of licensing is a positive rather than a negative result. Although it is difficult to deal with licensing issues, I believe it is important for the original creators to have recourse through the licensing agreements. By having licensing agreements, it forces a situation where the use of the predecessor’s work is more fair for both sides:  for the adapter or modifier and for the original licensor.

In conclusion, I agree with Manovich, that new technology desperately needs a new vocabulary.  I love Poscardt’s quote that Manovich ends with: “However much, quoting, sampling and stealing is done, in the end, it is the old subjects that undertake their own modernization. Even examination of technology and the conditions of productions do not rescue aesthetics from finally having to believe in the author. He just looks different.”

So the question:  “Who is the Author?” is now being answered by a newly adopted vocabulary. 

What is New Media?

            The Language of New Media, by Lev Manovich, questions: “What is new media?”  The most popular belief of what constitutes new media is: media using the computer. The computer revolution has effected communication in all aspects including: storage, calculations, manipulations, text, still images, moving images, sound, web and special construction.

            The evolution of the computer actually started in the 1830’s when the computer was able to perform calculations on numerical data more proficiently than calculators and still able to store images, data, and sound. In 1833, Charles Babbage invented punch cards where data and instructions were retained. Along with previous inventions and more modern inventions, by the 1890’s, individuals had the capability of storing images, creating image sequences, sounds, and texts, all in different material forms: photographic plates, film stock, and gramophone records. While this was going on, photographs were actually being put into motion and cinema had come alive, but both in their own ways, becoming “slaves” to the computer (25).

            Media became “new media” when Daguerre’s Daguerrpetpe, Babbage’s Analytical Engine, Lumiere’s Cinemotographine and Hollerith’s Tabular all merged creating a wealth of new possibilities. Now, the computer could read numerical and pixel values, search image data, detect a short change in a movie, synthesize motion, and do much more. Computers went from being able to only reading analog media sources to being able to read digital.  Media could become programmable. Society’s needs continued to effect the development of the computer. The computer and the culture became symbiotic: they directly affect each other.

            What I found most interesting in this article was the principles of new media. Media objects have the same modular structure. Each can have different identities but are together assembled into a larger scaled object.  By doing so, individual items can be changed or dissected, but yet, still remain the same entity. One of my favorite quotes in the book is, “Computers can pretend to be intelligent only by tricking us into using a very small part of who we are when we communicate with them (36).” The quote is followed by a pertinent example of people playing computer games against people or a computer, with the players not being able to tell the difference of whom or what they are playing against.

            I also found the “myth of interactivity” very interesting wherein Manovich talks about “new media” being interactive while “old media” is fixed or static. We now press a button, connect to links, and we physically interact with the mediums or “are asked to mistake the structure of somebody else’s mind (programmer, designer, or director) for our own (61).”  In the “Screen and the Body,” Manovich goes on to talk about the classic screen, which represents the past and is static, and then compares it to the real-time screen, which shows the present, motion, and interactivity. Manovich concludes: we still have not left the era of the screen.  Which is so true, we might be totally touch screen but there still is screen. 

change

Change

 Technology constantly evolves. Changing at such a fast pace that it is difficult for the average individual to keep up. A Review of Remediation: Understanding New Media, a book co-authored by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, discusses new media and its history. Bolter and Grusin begin talking about the “wire” that connects individuals together through new media. An important point of their book is expressed in with the ideas that new media allows individuals to transcend time.  The speed of “new media” forces old mediums (print, film, painting) to evolve through respectively reinventing themselves to stay contemporary.  As a result both mediums are compelled to change to stay ahead of the other. 

New media like internet, web cam, television, image, video games, graphic, texts, panels, and hyperlinks constantly demand our attention. The invention of virtual reality illustrates our attempt to transcend reality and experience hypermedacy by being in the same place as the object and the hypothetical time. In this reality we are surrounded by graphic objects that are supposed to create life-like experience without interruption. Nonetheless, the medium has inherent flaws as a result of image quality. The inaccuracy causes pixilation and a loss of detail. With time technology will only evolve to minimize this innate flaw. For example, when I graduated high school, a 3 mega pixel camera was a big deal, now an image of that size in the digital scope of things is of relatively poor quality.

It is important to critically analyze art that is developed through new media.  Bolter and Grusin argue that the new mediums, “are doing exactly what their predecessors have done: presenting themselves as refashioned and improved versions of other media (pg.14).” It is said that history is constantly repeating itself.  They argue that new media is doing exactly what old medias always have done, constantly trying distinguish themselves as different or better than older media.

Today technology has fully evolved as living part of our modern culture. With the developmental stages behind us, technology has a strong foundation in our society that will likely involve itself in every aspect. Technology innovaters, such as IBM, Apple, Microsoft, and other industry leaders count on weaving technology into are life. The development of technology reveals that every medium is a medium inside a medium or built upon another medium. Bolter and Grusin refer to this phenomena as remediation: photography remediated painting, film remediated stage production and photography, and television remediated film, vaudeville, and radio. Everything medium has a predecessor and it is the job of the new medium to bite the fed it and gave it life by exceeding the ancestor’s abilities.

The article discusses some very interesting points about technology as a new media and the evolution of new media in general. I was particularly interested by the implications of technology to the way our society communicates amongst ourselves. Today, communication is instant and visual. Another point of interest in change in audience perspective based on newer media, in photography and painting the prospective is fixed and in film and television the point of view is set in motion. Computers are perhaps the newest innovation to the media circus, allowing the audience to personally work within a medium and instantly receive results of their choice.

Finally, hyperdependency is also dependent on our social construct of that particular media. The example of a rock concert being a hypermedicay experience as a result of the sound, light, and televised images really intrigued me. Some individuals believe they have an authentic experience where others remain distance seeing it as sinful for its hyperdendency experience.  Art, like hypermedicay is all dependent on the viewer, who controls their art according their desires. The artist opinion loses weight in the technology crazed society of today thus, remapping the landscape which the foundation of art was created.

Questions: could we go over remediation as mediation of mediation and remediation as the inseparability of mediation and reality?