Actually Stephen Foster’s article confuses me a lot, I guess it partially because the concept of intermedia itself is a complicated term to define and explain. Foster first points out that one way to identify intermedia with multimedia is that he finds “intermedia most ‘inter’ when the medium, whatever that happens to be, serves as a vehicle through which a variety of ‘generic intentions ’can be processed…”. However, I don’t agree to him somehow. I don’t think that is the best way to identify the two. In my point of view, intermedia is when a variety of intentions and demands can be processed through different platforms while multimedia is when those happening only on the same platform. The different format of media not only lead to the different resource cost, integrated cost, but also causes diverse level of acceptance of target audiences and usage cost.
In Foster’s argument, he considers video as a strong candidate for intermedia because “it, as an media, compels”. And video is alive, spontaneous and fluctuating, combining all to Foster’s conclusion that Video is an extension of ourselves. He also claims that video is an extension of our nervous system. It seems like Foster prefers to humanize video as a medium. His argument reminds me of one of McLuhan’s argument regarding understanding media that I read before. He illustrates that medium is all instruments, skills and activities that extends human body. I think he tries to explore the meaning of media in the perspective of art instead of illustrating it in logic sense. His work of argument helps me understands Foster’s reasoning.
The video that I found is a open lecture on Sandbox Summit held by MIT University. This lecture is about the true meaning of transmedia and the relationship of the medium of play relating to it. I think the content resembles Foster’s argument on the relationship of video and intermedia.
http://v.163.com/movie/2009/8/4/U/M7AQR35GT_M7B7NUL4U.html
Like others, I've found Foster's description of "intermedia" fairly difficult to grasp, especially as it relates to multimedia. As I understand it, multimedia is the combination of two or more media in the creation of a work, such that that work is viewed as a product of that combination. For instance, a "movie" is (most often) a multimedia piece that is the product of combining motion picture filming, diegetic sound and non-diegetic sound, and artificial and natural elements of mise-en-scene (as well as writing and performance).
ReplyDeleteIntermedia, then, to me, is also a combination of two or more media, but in this case, the product exist in a sort of interstitial space between these media, as opposed to existing in a new category created by multimedia. Essentially, as I understand the two, multimedia is basically a new medium created though the combination of other media, while intermedia is not a creation of a new medium, but is instead a gray area between existing media through the combination of these media.
To me, it seems that multimedia is a homogenous mixture, while intermedia is a deliberately heterogenous one.
Here is a small example of intermedia (as I understand it).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kq7O6eR12oM
At various points in this animated show, motion picture is used. In this case, at 9:45.