Wednesday, April 24, 2013
McLuhan in the reading says, “For the ‘message’ of any medium or technology is the scale of change or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs.” He then uses an analogy of a railroad improving upon movement. But, McLuhan immediately contradicts this statement with the fact that the airplane, although revolutionary, remains independent of that definition. “The medium is the message” because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and firm if human association and action.” He is now references light is the subject in a surgery or ballgame subject matter. I found this statement most interesting but disagree with it. For instance, if I am eating a Chipotle burrito bowl, does the light affect the impact it has on me? Yes and no. Whether I am eating the burrito bowl in jet-black darkness or in light, the medium (burrito bowl) still has the same message to me, which is its spicy and sweet goodness. The light may affect my desire and experience, but still has no final effect of the message.
Here’s Martha Bayles opposing McLuhan as I do:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y4ZKcon5bGY
This week, as I read Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium is the Message," I was particurlarly struck by McLuhan's description of movies . On page four of our packet, McLuhan writes, "The movie, by sheer speeding up the mechanical, carried us from the world of sequence and connections into the world of creative configuration and structure. The message of the movie medium is that of transition from lineal connections to configurations." What then can we consider the message of the digital medium to be? Are we still in an age of creative configurations and sequences? Or have the onset of the personal computer and the internet allowed us to surpass this phase by virtue of their interactive environments?
In thinking about these questions, I considered the evolution of typography. Unlike the lineal, uniform print McLuhan reflects upon, today, typography has revolutionized the way we communicate. Each of us, as we constructed the blog assignments for today, have dabbled in the art of typography. In the twenty-first century, we breathe type. We type on our phones, or computers, our ipads, and ou free to manipulate this type as we wish thanks to a formatting toolbar and font-book. Perhaps, the digital interface has ushered us into a world de-configuration, of construction rather than connections.
http://www.behance.net/gallery/Hidden-typography/6832523
http://postertext.com/
In thinking about these questions, I considered the evolution of typography. Unlike the lineal, uniform print McLuhan reflects upon, today, typography has revolutionized the way we communicate. Each of us, as we constructed the blog assignments for today, have dabbled in the art of typography. In the twenty-first century, we breathe type. We type on our phones, or computers, our ipads, and ou free to manipulate this type as we wish thanks to a formatting toolbar and font-book. Perhaps, the digital interface has ushered us into a world de-configuration, of construction rather than connections.
http://www.behance.net/gallery/Hidden-typography/6832523
http://postertext.com/
The Medium is the Message
I don't fully agree that "the medium is the message". I feel that any thing that is created, whether it be art or a light bulb, begins with an abstract idea in someone's head. In order to relate an idea or emotion to other people a person must find a medium with which other people relate to. Thus, a person's true message, at its most basic point, can never fully be understood by anyone else. The medium in which the message is portrayed is influenced by the people that the message is meant to appeal to, so by taking this into account the original message becomes skewed. If an artist can't get their message across to people with the medium he is using he must change the medium or people won't care. If somebody continues to write letters because they like the personal touch, it doesn't add any if nobody reads it because everyone is on facebook. With technology, an inventor my only be able to get across part of his message due to scientific limitations or budget constraints.
I feel that rather than "the medium is the message", it should read "the medium distorts the message".
I think that instead of the medium influencing society, society influences the medium. This in effect makes the individual conform to the medium society prefers, which is ironic since a group of individuals create society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6eJyth8Dvo
I feel that rather than "the medium is the message", it should read "the medium distorts the message".
I think that instead of the medium influencing society, society influences the medium. This in effect makes the individual conform to the medium society prefers, which is ironic since a group of individuals create society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6eJyth8Dvo
"Medium is the Message"
Although I thought I had been understanding the concept of "the Medium is the Message" throughout the class, after reading McLuhan's article I became more confused about what this phrase actually means.
Even though I may not completely understand what the author was trying to say, I am intrigued by the quote "the content of any medium is always another medium". This boils down to the content being something non-verbal, such as a thought, which is another medium. So the only way I see the medium as being in the message is when we realize that within the medium there is another medium which allows us to figure out message. In this way it does not matter what that content actually is because it is only a vehicle to transport the message from its original medium to its final medium.
To visualize my idea I will use the idea that counting sheep will help you fall asleep as an analogy.
The sheep are the medium. They are only used to carry the message of sleep rather than the actual content of sheep, which you know is like fur and bones and such. However the content of sheep is another medium, it is the nonverbal thought of being distracted from thinking about not being able to fall asleep. And in this case, pondering about the sheep, perhaps causes the insomniac to think of what it feels like to pet it, then perhaps reminds them of a sweater their grandmother wore, then causes them to remember a certain song they always used to listen to while driving to their grandmothers house.. and so on until they fall asleep and the sheep successfully converted into the medium of distraction and message of sleep was successful delivered to the person.
So while we think about medium (the sheep) we realize it serves to distract us long enough so that the message could be delivered, and in that sense the medium has become the message. And a big part is that the medium may not carry the message in the same way for every person, and that some medium are more successful than others depending on the specific audience, which is also true about art.
I guess no specific image goes along with my abstract analogy, so I search "the medium is the message" and found this site: http://www.openculture.com/2012/04/the_medium_is_the_message.html and quote from McLuhan: "I don't necessarily agree with everything I say", which I find interesting because I felt like while trying to prove the medium is the message in my analogy, I ended up disproving it at the same time. So basically, there can be more than one answer for everything, and more than one way to deliver a message, which McLuhan touches on in his quote "you don't like those ideas? I got others."
Even though I may not completely understand what the author was trying to say, I am intrigued by the quote "the content of any medium is always another medium". This boils down to the content being something non-verbal, such as a thought, which is another medium. So the only way I see the medium as being in the message is when we realize that within the medium there is another medium which allows us to figure out message. In this way it does not matter what that content actually is because it is only a vehicle to transport the message from its original medium to its final medium.
To visualize my idea I will use the idea that counting sheep will help you fall asleep as an analogy.
The sheep are the medium. They are only used to carry the message of sleep rather than the actual content of sheep, which you know is like fur and bones and such. However the content of sheep is another medium, it is the nonverbal thought of being distracted from thinking about not being able to fall asleep. And in this case, pondering about the sheep, perhaps causes the insomniac to think of what it feels like to pet it, then perhaps reminds them of a sweater their grandmother wore, then causes them to remember a certain song they always used to listen to while driving to their grandmothers house.. and so on until they fall asleep and the sheep successfully converted into the medium of distraction and message of sleep was successful delivered to the person.
So while we think about medium (the sheep) we realize it serves to distract us long enough so that the message could be delivered, and in that sense the medium has become the message. And a big part is that the medium may not carry the message in the same way for every person, and that some medium are more successful than others depending on the specific audience, which is also true about art.
I guess no specific image goes along with my abstract analogy, so I search "the medium is the message" and found this site: http://www.openculture.com/2012/04/the_medium_is_the_message.html and quote from McLuhan: "I don't necessarily agree with everything I say", which I find interesting because I felt like while trying to prove the medium is the message in my analogy, I ended up disproving it at the same time. So basically, there can be more than one answer for everything, and more than one way to deliver a message, which McLuhan touches on in his quote "you don't like those ideas? I got others."
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
"The Medium is the Message" - Kevin Silverstein
This article addresses the question, is the medium the message? The author gives many examples outside of art such as the light bulb, the railway system, and other historical events. He talks about content and how the content of the medium is just another medium. He also writes that "the personal and social consequences of any medium... result form the new scale that is introduced into our affairs... by any new technology."
I see where the author is coming from, but I'm not sure it's so black and white. I believe that the content of the medium is just as or possibly more important than the medium. I see it like music in a video piece. The music can make or break the video but is it needed. If you just had the music and not the video it would just be a song and whatever message was in the video would be lost. The medium is important but isn't everything. That also addresses, is the content just another medium? This may be true in complex situations but at some point you can't keep digging deeper. Language can be expressed through different mediums, and language itself can be a medium, but the content of the language is not a medium. It's the most basic way of communication.
This is a video compilation of quotes said by McLuhan. It describes his point well and the compilation was put together to show how he may have felt about youtube today.
I see where the author is coming from, but I'm not sure it's so black and white. I believe that the content of the medium is just as or possibly more important than the medium. I see it like music in a video piece. The music can make or break the video but is it needed. If you just had the music and not the video it would just be a song and whatever message was in the video would be lost. The medium is important but isn't everything. That also addresses, is the content just another medium? This may be true in complex situations but at some point you can't keep digging deeper. Language can be expressed through different mediums, and language itself can be a medium, but the content of the language is not a medium. It's the most basic way of communication.
This is a video compilation of quotes said by McLuhan. It describes his point well and the compilation was put together to show how he may have felt about youtube today.
Monday, April 22, 2013
Medium is the Message
This reading caused me to reexamine the way I think of art as a whole. I tend to believe that the medium of any form of art is just that, a vehicle used to get across a point or emotion. Because of this view, I have fallen prey to one of the great follies critized in the passage: believing that every medium is created equal and without predisposition. I often would say that "guns don't kill people, eople kill people." This is stupid simply becuase guns (unlike most other controversial things) have one purpose--to kill things, namely humans. To ignore the purpose of guns is ignorant.
To translate this to art, thinking that an artist chose their medium haphazardly is ignorant. The medium is equally important to the overall message of a piece, never less.
To translate this to art, thinking that an artist chose their medium haphazardly is ignorant. The medium is equally important to the overall message of a piece, never less.
The Medium is the Message Max L.
My favorite section in this reading was the paragraph discussing General David Sarnoff's quote. I found this paragraph to be the most enlightening when it came to exemplifying what McLuhan was trying to get at and I appreciate his point of view on the General's quote. The fact that the nature of the medium (firearms for example) is somewhat ridiculous as the creation of the medium is already representing who the creator is as a person. Exploring the example of firearms, there is no way around justifying what they were created for. Sure, someone could say to inflict harm, defend oneself, or instill a sense of protection. However in the end of the day, a firearm is designed to inflict harm upon others which already sends a strong message of aggression/hate.
Mad Men Clip
Woman being used as the medium, her herself is the message.
Mad Men Clip
Woman being used as the medium, her herself is the message.
The Medium is the Message
"Apple pie is in itself neither good nor bad; it is the way it is used that determines its value." - I appreciate this sarcastic reversal of Sarnoff's statement. Many people do not appreciate the medium as a necessary part of the message even for gun use. The gun has the capability. Just like words have a certain capability, as does photographs. If a person makes a video of photographs, it is a lot different than if the medium were people.
Another aspect of the article that I appreciated is it talking about people viewing the progress of the final product. We do not aptly do this unless something is produced instantly. From interpretation of these parts of the article, I can conclude that it is important to slow down your art. It is also important to slow down the way that you use your medium.
For these arguments however, I feel that they usually evolve into the author criticizing modern society's inability to understand what they are viewing, such as what McLuhan attempted to do by citing Shakespeare's quotes. I think that we shouldn't be criticizing our ways of instant viewing, but instead taking pride in our technologies ability to evolve. There is a lot of art that has been able to be included in the type of art that we view because of these fast processes. For the viewing part of my response, I am including a youtube video that is talking about the medium as the message in a critical way. I think that by viewing this video, it helps to develop a little bit more of a personal perception of what the medium as the message entails.
Another aspect of the article that I appreciated is it talking about people viewing the progress of the final product. We do not aptly do this unless something is produced instantly. From interpretation of these parts of the article, I can conclude that it is important to slow down your art. It is also important to slow down the way that you use your medium.
For these arguments however, I feel that they usually evolve into the author criticizing modern society's inability to understand what they are viewing, such as what McLuhan attempted to do by citing Shakespeare's quotes. I think that we shouldn't be criticizing our ways of instant viewing, but instead taking pride in our technologies ability to evolve. There is a lot of art that has been able to be included in the type of art that we view because of these fast processes. For the viewing part of my response, I am including a youtube video that is talking about the medium as the message in a critical way. I think that by viewing this video, it helps to develop a little bit more of a personal perception of what the medium as the message entails.
The Medium is the Message
McLuhan is clearly in favor of media studies being understood as a study of medium itself, rather than what a medium may convey, but he seems torn, on occasion, about the way he values certain mediums, and whether contemporary modern electric mediums don't represent some kind of "threat".
McLuhan writes, about halfway through the selected section, that "the American stake in literacy as a technology or uniformity applied to every level of education, government, industry and social life is totally threatened by the electric technology." Obviously, McLuhan's contemporary "electric technology" was the television, and in some ways much more divorced from literacy than what we see as the forefront of electric technology today, but the quote still seems disingenuous. Even if they're part of what the medium "conveys" through programming, television still represents the mediums of speech and text, and in the case of Closed Captioning and consumers who might need it to experience the medium, it's an essential part of the medium of television, with no relevance to the conveyance.
The video below isn't so much related to this quote as it is to the general perception of McLuhan, but this clip from Annie Hall -- featuring Marshall McLuhan -- is an interesting example of the way people misperceive McLuhan's work, featuring both the movie patron in line, and more metatextually, Woody Allen, as a director.
McLuhan writes, about halfway through the selected section, that "the American stake in literacy as a technology or uniformity applied to every level of education, government, industry and social life is totally threatened by the electric technology." Obviously, McLuhan's contemporary "electric technology" was the television, and in some ways much more divorced from literacy than what we see as the forefront of electric technology today, but the quote still seems disingenuous. Even if they're part of what the medium "conveys" through programming, television still represents the mediums of speech and text, and in the case of Closed Captioning and consumers who might need it to experience the medium, it's an essential part of the medium of television, with no relevance to the conveyance.
The video below isn't so much related to this quote as it is to the general perception of McLuhan, but this clip from Annie Hall -- featuring Marshall McLuhan -- is an interesting example of the way people misperceive McLuhan's work, featuring both the movie patron in line, and more metatextually, Woody Allen, as a director.
Sunday, April 21, 2013
Medium is the Message (Zoe)
I enjoyed reading this passage because I’ve heard the famous phrase, “the medium is the message,” many times without really knowing what that means. The statement itself seems absolutely ludicrous, and after reading the passage I feel I understand the argument (I think I understand the argument...), but do not completely agree.
On page three McLuhan comments on a quote by Sarnoff, “the products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” McLuhan then brings up multiple examples such as an apple pie, small-pox virus, and firearms to make his point that the nature of objects do not change with how they are used. This is just ludicrous. Apple pies are not inherently good, especially if you give one to someone who’s allergic to apples. Small-pox is not inherently bad because it can be used to make a vaccine. And firearms can be either good or bad depending on what or who is hit. How humans interact with a medium distinctly alters the message that the medium delivers.
However, in some cases, such as in McLuhan’s example of cubism, his famous statement seems correct. As he writes, “For cubism substitutes all facets of an object simultaneously for the “point of view” or facet of perspective illusion.” The art of cubist painters is an exploration in the medium, and therefor “the medium is the message.” Or perhaps when combined with the analysis in the previous paragraph, the medium CAN be the message.
I decided to post the credits to wall-e because I think it complicates the McLuhan's definition of medium. In the clip, video is remediating different styles of art from cave painting to video-games. When mediums represent other mediums, does it alter the message? Does straight video say something different than video representing italian renaissance paintings?
I decided to post the credits to wall-e because I think it complicates the McLuhan's definition of medium. In the clip, video is remediating different styles of art from cave painting to video-games. When mediums represent other mediums, does it alter the message? Does straight video say something different than video representing italian renaissance paintings?
The Medium is the Message
Even though this term was briefly introduced to us before in one of our assigned readings, I wasn't clearly sure what Marshall McLuhan meant. After reading this excerpt from his book I finally kind of understood what he meant by "the medium is the message". Well, in introducing this phrase, McLuhan is basically implying that the medium, not the content is what matters for it is the medium that shapes, forms and produces the content. And this did not made any sense at all until he used the General David Sarnoff's phrase as an example to explain it: "The products of modern science are not in themselves good nor bad, it is the way it is used that determines its value". And this statement got me into thinking there are certain things in this world that are just simply bad regardless of whichever context they are used on. For instance, any disease, which he mentions, can't be perceived as a positive thing. I don't think there could be anyone who is happy to get terminal cancer or perhaps HIV and therefore, there is no good in it. People who suffer from diseases like the ones previously mentioned and survive usually feel situations like this made them stronger and better humans. But that does not mean that the value of cancer or HIV is a good one. As a Christian I can strongly assure I could ever say the devil is neither good or bad simply because of my beliefs. And so in going through these thoughts made me realize that statement is most times irrelevant or wrongly applied. I am quite sure that in some cases it can be correctly utilized but by specifying that in this world there are things that are just bad and things that are just good, the statements loses credibility. So after more carefully analyzing this statement I began to wonder whether the medium is really what is more important and kind of found myself remembering the installation chapter where the context started to become the content. And it kind of does make sense. Just like in the installation chapter the way in which an art piece is presented affects the way we perceive it and therefore it is not only about the piece itself, but also about the way it is presented. Same happens with this phrase: it is now not about the message, but instead about the medium a person chooses to deliver the message with, because in choosing it, the person knows the benefits, limitations and troubles of using that medium.
Here is a video of mad men where this phrase is used:
Here is a video of mad men where this phrase is used:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)