Article here.
Mentor Cana notes two criticisms of McLuhan's ideas:
1. McLuhan excludes the process of technology innovation and social constructionism of media technologies in his argument
2. McLuhan oversimplifies the medium-message argument with the content being excluded in most cases. This leads McLuhan toward a "conclusion that media somehow have a life of their own independent of the context and social structures, thus attributing hegemonic like processes and properties to media technologies." The properties of media are manifestations of attributes that have been embedded within themselves as a result of a more complicated process of the play of context, socio-economic, and political factors.
The medium is the message.
The medium is kind of the message?
The medium is also a message.
Well, that I can hop on board with.
I had a hard time grasping that the technology had so much power and its effects had little to do with people and societies and their attributes and beliefs. Technologies indeed have social and political effects, but it would be wise to examine by whom they were developed. What social and political structures were in place when they were created? So Cana makes more sense to me.
One aspect of McLuhan's body of work that stuck out is the idea of people being unaware of the downfalls of technology and defenseless to its growth. On one level, it makes sense -- I consider the sometimes-significant effects of advertising on people. However, I've never been completely in the "poor defenseless humans" and "big bad technology" camp. So Cana's conclusion made a lot of sense to me:
"The conditions under which McLuhan could make lots of sense would be when media and communication technologies become so advanced that they could transparently and in totality, through complex web of advanced sensory probes, absorb into themselves the complex conditions of their environments, and at the same time be able to manifest the same into the environment. In these conditions, medium might be the message, media might posses in and by themselves hegemonic tendencies. But we are not there yet. I don’t believe we’ll ever get there."
And maybe we will get there. But as it is, let's not write off our ability to understand the effects of technology.
Or maybe that's what the machine wants me to think...
Monday, September 28, 2009
Excerpts from Understanding Media, The Extensions of Man -- Marshall McLuhan
Article here.
McLuhan suggests that “the medium is the message because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action.” I loosely grasp this, mostly because I view it as how we can't undervalue the importance of how we receive the message. McLuhan would roll his eyes at me, though. I'm not quite there.
He says that content and medium are the same thing. This makes more sense to me through a professional lens where, in marketing/communications, the focus is typically on the what of the message. However, the medium of the message -- web, email, phone call, tv ad, print ad, etc. -- determines the human association and action. Inextricably linked within those media are certain values and notions. If I'm trying to sell you a product, would I send you an email? If data points to the fact that customers are less trustful of email marketing, and are more inclined to look favorably at products that well-known bloggers promote, wouldn't I choose to develop a relationship with a blogger? This "trustworthy medium" is the message.
McLuhan would likely tell me that I'm way off still, much like other analyses of media. I'm not detached enough to determine the social effects of media content since the spell, as he puts it, can occur immediately upon contact. Could he find someone who hasn't been put under the spell? Could anyone really be completely detached from society and able to distinguish the effects of media technologies from their messages? I doubt I'm a good candidate.
McLuhan suggests that “the medium is the message because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action.” I loosely grasp this, mostly because I view it as how we can't undervalue the importance of how we receive the message. McLuhan would roll his eyes at me, though. I'm not quite there.
He says that content and medium are the same thing. This makes more sense to me through a professional lens where, in marketing/communications, the focus is typically on the what of the message. However, the medium of the message -- web, email, phone call, tv ad, print ad, etc. -- determines the human association and action. Inextricably linked within those media are certain values and notions. If I'm trying to sell you a product, would I send you an email? If data points to the fact that customers are less trustful of email marketing, and are more inclined to look favorably at products that well-known bloggers promote, wouldn't I choose to develop a relationship with a blogger? This "trustworthy medium" is the message.
McLuhan would likely tell me that I'm way off still, much like other analyses of media. I'm not detached enough to determine the social effects of media content since the spell, as he puts it, can occur immediately upon contact. Could he find someone who hasn't been put under the spell? Could anyone really be completely detached from society and able to distinguish the effects of media technologies from their messages? I doubt I'm a good candidate.
Marshall McLuhan: The Medium is the Message -- Todd Kappelman
Article here.
In addition to a brief discussion of McLuhan's thoughts on the impact of technology on popular culture and some of the important terms he coined (media (!), global village), Kappelman dives into the "meat" of McLuhan's concepts -- technology as extensions of the human body and four questions he applied to media.
Kappelman says, "An extension occurs when an individual or society makes or uses something in a way that extends the range of the human body and mind in a fashion that is new." Every extension succeeds in modifying or amputating some other extension. McLuhan suggests that people typically ignore or minimize the amputations.
For example, I used to talk to my parents on the phone almost every day. When my mom figured out how to text, she started to communicate with me almost exclusively through texting. The medium is quick and convenient, but I miss our daily chats and notice that texting doesn't afford the kind of connection a phone call does. This is likely more of a modification -- not a complete amputation -- but I've noticed that there are several friends with whom I communicate solely on Facebook. No more phone calls. No more emails. Amputation? It's sure starting to look that way.
In McLuhan's "The Global Village" he poses four a scientific basis for his thoughts around what he called the tetrad. He sought to apply four questions to the endeavors of mankind as a new tool for looking at our culture.
1. What does the medium/technology extend?
2. What does it make obsolete?
3. What is retrieved?
4. What does the technology reverse into if it is over-extended?
If we were to apply this tetrad to the Kindle (digital reading device):
1. Extends our ability to gain access to a larger number of books, magazines, etc.
2. Print publishing could become obsolete.
3. People could retrieve (or re-retrieve!) a love of reading.
4. If over-extended, people could become more isolated.
In addition to a brief discussion of McLuhan's thoughts on the impact of technology on popular culture and some of the important terms he coined (media (!), global village), Kappelman dives into the "meat" of McLuhan's concepts -- technology as extensions of the human body and four questions he applied to media.
Kappelman says, "An extension occurs when an individual or society makes or uses something in a way that extends the range of the human body and mind in a fashion that is new." Every extension succeeds in modifying or amputating some other extension. McLuhan suggests that people typically ignore or minimize the amputations.
For example, I used to talk to my parents on the phone almost every day. When my mom figured out how to text, she started to communicate with me almost exclusively through texting. The medium is quick and convenient, but I miss our daily chats and notice that texting doesn't afford the kind of connection a phone call does. This is likely more of a modification -- not a complete amputation -- but I've noticed that there are several friends with whom I communicate solely on Facebook. No more phone calls. No more emails. Amputation? It's sure starting to look that way.
In McLuhan's "The Global Village" he poses four a scientific basis for his thoughts around what he called the tetrad. He sought to apply four questions to the endeavors of mankind as a new tool for looking at our culture.
1. What does the medium/technology extend?
2. What does it make obsolete?
3. What is retrieved?
4. What does the technology reverse into if it is over-extended?
If we were to apply this tetrad to the Kindle (digital reading device):
1. Extends our ability to gain access to a larger number of books, magazines, etc.
2. Print publishing could become obsolete.
3. People could retrieve (or re-retrieve!) a love of reading.
4. If over-extended, people could become more isolated.
Monday, September 21, 2009
Towards a Mediological Method: A Framework for Critically Engaging -- Melinda Turnley
Article here.
Turnley describes media convergence as "the ways in which digital technology allows previously distinct media to come together." Content like images, video and text are being merged by anyone and everyone and the combination of these "multimodal elements" is blurring the relationship between producers and consumers (Turnley, 1).
Because of the technological, industrial, cultural and social assumptions behind media, tools must be developed to understand media individually and in their convergence. Turnley's article explores a mediological (method developed by French theorist Regis Debray) theory through the lenses of semiotics, communication, art history, sociology, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, and more. Seven dimensions are included in the framework of this theory (Turnley, 36):
technological: technical components necessary for medium to function
social: metaphors, images, narratives which circulate in relation to the medium
economic: systems for production which support the development, distribution and maintenance of a medium
archival: material and conceptual components for the reception, accumulation, distribution and retrieval of information
aesthetic: conventions and expectations for form, formatting, design andcontent associated with a medium
subjective: patterns amd expectations related to subject formation, the nature of the self and the positionality of users/audiences
epistemological: assumptions concerning the nature of knowledge, information, truth, intelligence and literacy
I'm looking forward to using this framework this quarter and beyond. Although it's a lot to "unpack" right now, I can see how the categories can help me execute a better multi-dimensional media analysis.
Turnley describes media convergence as "the ways in which digital technology allows previously distinct media to come together." Content like images, video and text are being merged by anyone and everyone and the combination of these "multimodal elements" is blurring the relationship between producers and consumers (Turnley, 1).
Because of the technological, industrial, cultural and social assumptions behind media, tools must be developed to understand media individually and in their convergence. Turnley's article explores a mediological (method developed by French theorist Regis Debray) theory through the lenses of semiotics, communication, art history, sociology, linguistics, psychology, philosophy, and more. Seven dimensions are included in the framework of this theory (Turnley, 36):
technological: technical components necessary for medium to function
social: metaphors, images, narratives which circulate in relation to the medium
economic: systems for production which support the development, distribution and maintenance of a medium
archival: material and conceptual components for the reception, accumulation, distribution and retrieval of information
aesthetic: conventions and expectations for form, formatting, design andcontent associated with a medium
subjective: patterns amd expectations related to subject formation, the nature of the self and the positionality of users/audiences
epistemological: assumptions concerning the nature of knowledge, information, truth, intelligence and literacy
I'm looking forward to using this framework this quarter and beyond. Although it's a lot to "unpack" right now, I can see how the categories can help me execute a better multi-dimensional media analysis.
As We May Think -- Vannevar Bush
Article here.
Bush's prophetic 1945 article outlines a postwar environment where information is plentiful but methods for collecting, storing, indexing, and retrieving are inadequate. He proposes that there must be a shift in scientific efforts from controlling human physical environment to making human knowledge more accessible. Where's an internet when you need one?
Bush discusses several tools that exist and ones that *should* exist, most of them focused on data recording (image and sound) and storage. He notes that scientists are not the only people who manipulate data and examine the world around them and that all people can profit from the "inheritance of acquired knowledge." But if only a limited amount of information is available, people cannot use it to their full potential. However, because of the way people naturally organize information by association (instead of numerically and alphabetically), new methods must be considered. Bush discusses a "memex" -- a computer system implemented with electromechanical controls and microfilm equipment, that would permit a researcher to follow and annotate topics of interest, analogous to later hypertext technologies (from wikipedia).
Some interesting points:
Bush's prophetic 1945 article outlines a postwar environment where information is plentiful but methods for collecting, storing, indexing, and retrieving are inadequate. He proposes that there must be a shift in scientific efforts from controlling human physical environment to making human knowledge more accessible. Where's an internet when you need one?
Bush discusses several tools that exist and ones that *should* exist, most of them focused on data recording (image and sound) and storage. He notes that scientists are not the only people who manipulate data and examine the world around them and that all people can profit from the "inheritance of acquired knowledge." But if only a limited amount of information is available, people cannot use it to their full potential. However, because of the way people naturally organize information by association (instead of numerically and alphabetically), new methods must be considered. Bush discusses a "memex" -- a computer system implemented with electromechanical controls and microfilm equipment, that would permit a researcher to follow and annotate topics of interest, analogous to later hypertext technologies (from wikipedia).
Some interesting points:
- The parallels Bush draws between the technology and human anatomy. The technology would be most effective if it can mirror the way branis operate. He poses the technology as an "extension of the human brain" that follows "trails" much like the brain does but with much more clarity and permanence. What's even more interesting is that this type of indexing has yet to be fully explored -- we still interact with technology, especially computers, largely in unnatural and illogical ways.
- Speech recognition -- "talk to type": what has kept this from catching on? I play with it on my computer all the time, but I never think to "write" a paper with it. Too inaccurate?
- How far long are we...really? I used to work for a content management software company that enabled users to input, index, store, retrieve, share, workflow, and destroy information. Sounds pretty cool. Who wouldn't use that?
The product was solid. We won many awards and had a partnership with Microsoft. Yay, big money. Except no. Because at the end of the day, content management software is only as good as the users inputting the information, regardless of how easy the input steps are.
Sure, OCR could help users auto-index items and fields could be set so information us automatically pulled from certain types of reports and documents. But if Joe in accounting doesn't tag the report as a mortgage note or Jane in finance doesn't approve the P&L sheet in the workflow and send it to the auditing team, the software is useless.
In this regard, Bush's proposal for technology to closely mirror the way our brains are wired make a lot of sense. When we interact naturally with tools -- the big Google search box comes to mind -- we're more inclined to use them more often. But storing and indexing are huge undertakings, regardless of task. Just consider how many times you've created a document that required collaboration. Think about your naming conventions and how you organized the content. Now think about how others try to understand it and make it their own, and you end up with multiple versions of the document. Multiply that by hundreds for some industries -- hundreds of thousands for, say, research and financial industries.
Who will organize, index, and generally make sense of this? Not the technology.
Giving up my iPod for a Walkman -- Scott Campbell
Article here.
Thirteen-year-old Scott Campbell swaps his iPod for a Walkman and discusses his experience. In addition to comparing the appearance, sound, convenience, Campbell also contemplates his limited knowledge of technology.
My initial thought was that this kid would not have the patience for the Walkman. The slow rewinding and fast forwarding, short battery life, having to flip the cassette (which he didn't realize until later). Kids (well, to be fair, mostly everyone) these days want immediate gratification -- songs when they want them, no commercials, etc. Most don't have the patience to listen to an entire song -- let alone an entire album -- before they're skipping forward. The absolute highlight for me was when Campbell discovered a "shuffle" feature by rewinding and releasing randomly. Of course!
One interesting thing that I recall about my Walkman is that most of my tapes were recordings from the radio. I didn't have a ton of cash back then, so purchasing tapes was typically out of the question. So I improvised and recorded all of my favorite songs from the radio...which had commercials. What a huge difference between my childhood and the current generation. iPods and DVR -- do they listen to ANY commercials anymore? They may have an attention span of a gnat, but perhaps "big bad advertising" isn't getting to them like they got to me and my peers.
I had to laugh when he said he was "relieved that the majority of technological advancement happened before (he) was born.” I'm sure everyone has stopped at one point and thought, "Wow, what more can be done? Teleportation and that's about it." But the window of time for research and product development is getting shorter and shorter. Gone are the days of products hitting shelves in 10-15 years from initial development. Look how far the iPod has come since its initial release in 2001. Capacity from 10GB to 160GB, black and white to color screen, three times the battery life, available in multiple colors, video camera, wi-fi, and the list goes on and on. There have been dramatic changes in just eight short years. Hold on tight, young Scott Campbell. Technology still has a long way to go.
Thirteen-year-old Scott Campbell swaps his iPod for a Walkman and discusses his experience. In addition to comparing the appearance, sound, convenience, Campbell also contemplates his limited knowledge of technology.
My initial thought was that this kid would not have the patience for the Walkman. The slow rewinding and fast forwarding, short battery life, having to flip the cassette (which he didn't realize until later). Kids (well, to be fair, mostly everyone) these days want immediate gratification -- songs when they want them, no commercials, etc. Most don't have the patience to listen to an entire song -- let alone an entire album -- before they're skipping forward. The absolute highlight for me was when Campbell discovered a "shuffle" feature by rewinding and releasing randomly. Of course!
One interesting thing that I recall about my Walkman is that most of my tapes were recordings from the radio. I didn't have a ton of cash back then, so purchasing tapes was typically out of the question. So I improvised and recorded all of my favorite songs from the radio...which had commercials. What a huge difference between my childhood and the current generation. iPods and DVR -- do they listen to ANY commercials anymore? They may have an attention span of a gnat, but perhaps "big bad advertising" isn't getting to them like they got to me and my peers.
I had to laugh when he said he was "relieved that the majority of technological advancement happened before (he) was born.” I'm sure everyone has stopped at one point and thought, "Wow, what more can be done? Teleportation and that's about it." But the window of time for research and product development is getting shorter and shorter. Gone are the days of products hitting shelves in 10-15 years from initial development. Look how far the iPod has come since its initial release in 2001. Capacity from 10GB to 160GB, black and white to color screen, three times the battery life, available in multiple colors, video camera, wi-fi, and the list goes on and on. There have been dramatic changes in just eight short years. Hold on tight, young Scott Campbell. Technology still has a long way to go.
The Machine is Us/ing Us
This short video highlighting the rise of Web 2.0 and its social and cultural implications was produced in March 2007 -- light years ago considering the rapid pace of technology development. So I'm pretty surprised by its freshness. The presentation of ideas was unique; the author employed blogs, wikis, video and photo sharing sites, RSS feeds, etc., to present information about blogs, wikis, video and photo sharing sites, RSS feeds, etc. This media is enabling anyone to produce and edit information, create videos, share photos, broadcast news, and the list goes on and on.
Wait...anyone?
Yep. Anyone. So that's where it gets crazy.
It reminds me of when I was 12 and AOL was my drug. Hey, this guy wants to chat with me. He's 14 and from Boston. Awesome. Except he's probably 50 and in his mom's basement. That potential for nefariousness still exists, but now the lack of gatekeeping and fact checking poses trouble on a much larger scale. Who's credible? Who are the experts? In a race to break the story first, who even has the time to check?
What are we really teaching the machine? I hope it's not paying close attention to me because I rarely organize my web life. Tagging takes forever. My inbox has thousands of emails and no rules or filters. Ah, a story for another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
