The Medium is the Message response

         I think that McLuhan’s claim that the “‘message’ of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs” is pretty well-understood by readers of the modern age. It looks like the book this excerpt is from was published in 1964, a year in an interesting era for the movies and television. In the movie industry, films in the 1960s and ‘70s were just exiting the dominance of the Classical Hollywood style that focused on narrative, good triumphing over evil, and continuous time. Films in the Hollywood Renaissance started to acknowledge the constructedness of the medium (which de-prioritized the narrative), often had uncertain, irresolute endings and started breaking away from the linear structure of older films. The breakdown of structure is often at least partly attributed to the social and political context in which these films were made, in the midst of Vietnam and the various political scandals and riots occurring in the United States. At the same time, the film medium itself changed, with the advent of smaller and more portable cameras that aided the spread of observational documentary. The simplification of filming also meant that non-professionals could take to the streets with cameras, spreading the technology to the masses. I think these points are relevant to McLuhan’s piece about the medium being the message because these bits of history show that the changes in the style of film and in the creation of it reflect the upheavals reverberating through society at the time, and have themselves affected the way we think of film. For example, it’s no longer a given that movies will avoid breaking the fourth wall, or that the main character will always survive; we just can’t imagine that to be real anymore because film has restructured itself that way. It’s interesting to consider whether that means we as a society see life and social relations as more fragmented or if they actually are more fragmented.

        This reading made me think of two different things, one a scientific study and the other a video. A study was conducted in May 2003 by C. Shawn Green and Daphne Bavalier of the University of Rochester (!) examining the effects of videogame playing on subjects’ visual attention. They found that videogame players had higher attentional capacity in that, compared to non-gamers: they can group objects (like numbers) together more efficiently so they can remember more of them, they can unerringly apprehend a higher number of visual items, they have an enhanced allocation of spatial attention all over the visual field, and have higher task-switching abilities. Additionally, and this is what I find most interesting: training non-gamers on an action game increased the capacity of their visual attention, spatial distribution, and temporal resolution (task-switching). This study goes to show that the different way of spreading attention that videogame playing requires does in fact change the way we perceive the world. It’s, in my opinion, a perfect complement to McLuhan’s assertion that “the effects of technology…alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without any resistance.” 

        I also thought about a video from The Onion where panelists can see audience reactions to what they say in real time, so they adjust accordingly. Not only is it amusing, it goes to show that the instant-ification of the way we get our news changes what kind of news we get and how we interpret that news.

The Medium is the Message: Damn Straight!

Mr. McLuhan reminded me why I love the humanities. That being said, I would like to first, express my profound sense of enlightenment provided by his writing, and second, offer an explanation as to why I had such an epiphany while reading his words.

On the first note, this reading showed me not only McLuhan's thoughts on a matter, but a great deal of his mentality. Here is a man who is brilliant and has the capacity to turn the world upside down with an idea. "The medium is the message." It's not that he may be right or wrong about what he thinks, but that he has an innate curiosity and sensibility towards the world, and the capacity to connect the dots, bring it all together, question the very fabric of nature and society...squint past the facts and see reality; offer an explanation, without permission, without pride. An attitude of humble, yet sharp observation, very akin to Paul Goodman's or Noam Chomsky's, two of my personal heroes.

Concerning his actual message, that "the medium is the message," I believe that he provides a fair amount of logical--and even amusing--examples as to how his interpretation works. The case he makes for the light bulb is powerful, for he re-introduces this technology to the reader according to his vision: the light-bulb is in fact a medium, one without content in and of itself, but a medium after all. Taken that as a starting point, we can see how the light bulb, and not necessarily its "uses" or "content," produced a revolution in human civilization and a profound change in our psyche, society and relations with nature. Analogically, it is TV, writing, speech... that offers the "message," i.e, the purpose, the substance that drives our evolution, decisions and affects. Effect, that is what matters, and that is what "content" tries to conceal. On a personal level, I never thought about medium and effect/message in a very conscious way, although I suspect this notion was just underneath some of my deepest thought sessions. I sincerely agree, and think that it makes sense. Content as he uses the concept, is irrelevant in the larger narrative of humanity. Putting a medium to a moral test (we can use it for good or bad) is being insensible to what is going on in the world, and provides for all kinds of ambiguities which further disguise the central issues and questions.

As far as "hot" and "cold" mediums are concerned, I believe that his use of these concepts is highly debatable. Sometimes, the choices seem arbitrary based on his own definitions which are in fact quite solid, but can also be freely used, even by the author himself. These concepts do provide a fairly reasonable system for analyzing different mediums and comparing their effect, which again, is what matters. However, the classification of TV as a cool medium along with his reasons is not logical, at least not immediately.His generalizations on how "cool" and "hot" societies react to likewise kinds of mediums also seem to assume a great deal of facts, disregarding many cultural aspects particularity to each individual society. However, his argument and definitions allow for a more case by case study of effects.

For my video, a funny Woody Allen moment... McLuhan shows up! Both the medium master and the master of mediums come together!

Gollin Film: Submit now!

***Reminder***

The Film and Media Studies Program is still accepting entries from students for the 9th Annual Gollin Film Festival to be held on April 24, 2014.

Maximum two entries per applicant, and films must have been made since enrollment at the UR.

Deadline for Entries: April 17

To Submit:

LINKS - Send us a working link to your moving image works via Vimeo or
Dropbox. This link must be both downloadable and streaming. Send links
to: Alvin Lomibao <alvin.lomibao@rochester.edu>

FMS DROPBOX -You may sumbit your works via our FMS Dropbox account by
emailing Alvin Lomibao <alvin.lomibao@rochester.edu> He will then send
you a dropbox info/permissions for you to upload to the FMS folder.
Your moving image upload must be under 2GB.

Guidlines:
No email attachments!
Files must be no larger than 2GB.
Use H.264 compression to keep file sizes down
For more info about compression: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v1/url?u=http://vimeo.com/help/compression&k=p4Ly7qpEBiYPBVenR9G2iQ%3D%3D%0A&r=pfTNNxtWOyDJ%2B3L2eiPD8Fa5zMw0PBoY2Ek3T5fpQdw%3D%0A&m=d%2FtjLklwNaEM1qJar4%2FwAzRHkNr9riflRjhEm4G3JFs%3D%0A&s=208b8c1f7c9df74009990aaaa2d95eca501ea564b989013dda32e62cc613f9e9

Direct questions to <alvin.lomibao@rochester.edu>

The Medium is the Message: Link

http://louisville.edu/humanities/ph.d-program-in-humanities/aha/critical-theory-reading-group/selections/Mcluhan-%20The%20Medium%20is%20the%20Message%201964.pdf/at_download/file

Hey guys. Sorry for the delay in posting this. I wish I could find my original version, but this will certainly do. Enjoy! It's a very intriguing article to critically engage with. 

WW

The Medium is the Message Response

I don't think McLuhan is suggesting a novel idea arguing that the medium has a strong tie to it's perception. His proposition; however, does hold a lot of weight when more closely related to video art and not loosely examined in a multitude of metaphors that are anything but succinct. Most notably when applied to music videos. With the advent of MTV and other music video centered televised outlets came the mini cinema that are music videos, giving a visual narrative to a story whose entirety was only expressed through sound.
Appreciators of a song or album were free to visualize their own stories in collaboration with a prescribed soundtrack, an immense freedom given the many ways notes, melodies, lyrics, and composition can be interpreted. A prefabricated visual representation undoubtedly takes away the majority of this freedom to relate to a song on a personal level through the listener's own creation of the world the music illustrates. But when alternate videos are released to the public from the creator of the music, differences in how the audio tracks can be digested are highlighted to an extreme extent. Take for instance Kid Cudi's Pursuit of Happiness. The original the music with a social gathering but the main character seems distanced from them, in a different dimension separated by time. While this, the first version, seems to highlight lyrics emphasizing the rat race for success and acceptance, the Megaforce Version  has a stronger focus on reality and substance abuse. The medium being the same, there is still an incredible amount of difference in the message due to the methods used in the creation of the videos. The effects greatly change the resulting end product and steer viewers' perceptions heavily.
I believe the underlying ideology of medium controlling message also coincides with the rampant remix culture of music today as well, further illustrated by music video. Once again, Kid Cudi presents the original video for Day N' Nite as well as two versions to accompany the Crookers' remix (1 and 2). The later musical version has a much more fun, party-goer feel and as such the videos are more in tune with this style. The first is more scary and melancholic. Again, we see the dichotomy of the perception of reality and paranoia contrasted against a carefree party attitude, and the gradient in between.

The Medium is the Message

I have, in fact, read McLuhan's article before in a different film related class, so I did not find it as difficult to wrap my head around what McLuhan states. But, when I was first introduced to the concept, I did find it a bit confusing. I think the best way to understand McLuhan's concept is to actually compare mediums that are trying to convey the same message. My freshman year, I took a class called "Translating Mediums," which discussed the transformation a written work will undergo when transitioning into a performed piece (in other words, a play) and then into a recorded piece (in other words, a film). It is amazing how differently a single message can be altered based on the medium in which it is presented. A great example of how the medium can strongly impact the message is by looking at the film Les Miserables. Les Mis is blockbuster musical that was then recently turned into a blockbuster film. The medium of film, in relation to Les Miserables, completely alters the purpose of certain characters as a result of the limitations film creates, such as a shorter duration. For instance, in the musical, Eponine dies after she delivers a love letter from Marius to Cosette. In the film, she dies by sacrificing herself for Marius. Since theatergoers are used to action occurring offstage, Eponine's death is acceptable, but since filmgoers wish to see everything unravel in front of their eyes, she has to die in a different way and onscreen. The differing styles of death as a result of the differing mediums causes the character of Eponine to change drastically. I realize this may be slightly confusing if you haven't seen both versions of Les Miserables, so here is the first part of a lecture by McLuhan himself. In the video, McLuhan explains his idea of "the medium is the message."http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImaH51F4HBw

Medium is the Message response

This article makes a lot of good points, even if some of McLuhan's theories are slightly confusing.
It is true that we choose different representations to augment an idea we wish to present. Certainly the equivalent message portrayed by a painting would have a much different impact the audience if it was portrayed instead by a performance. I think any artist should consider their options of medium when they are thinking about what they want to portray. However I'm not so sure that it has quite so much power of the message as McLuhan suggests.

McLuhan's idea of "hot" and "cool" medium is confusing as well. It makes sense that film is "hot", but then shouldn't TV then also be "hot"since it uses the same properties? Ignoring that confusing point, the idea of film as a "hot" medium definitely has a lot to say about the people who choose it as a medium for their message and ideas. It completely dominates your senses. It requires your vision, attention, hearing, and your time. Any missing aspect of this allows you more control in terms of your imagination. You could be shown an image combined with sound, but it could be short piece that you can play and replay and go backward and forward without being dependent on the actual time of the piece; you could watch a silent film but with no auditory cues you are left to use your imagination to work with the piece; you could even watch a video, but simply not give it your full attention and the effect is lost somewhat (is this ability to divert our attention elsewhere why TV is considered "cool"?).
So for certain those that choose this medium want to immerse you directly into an experience and not give you much freedom of interpretation on what you are experiencing. They want their subject matter to hit each person in exactly the same way because this is how they ensure the message is less variable.

So thats kind of how I see McLuhan's theory. Rather than being a part of the actual message (though I suppose the choice of medium speaks somewhat to the creator's intent) it is more like an intensity level for the message. Something 'cool' like an abstract painting that is left more open to interpretation would have a low intensity and film, of course, would have a high intensity. And the highest intensity, I suppose, would be the "feelies" from Huxley's Brave New World.
this video is interesting. He talks about his ideas of "cool" and "hot" medium.

The Medium is the Message response

Before reading this article, I had never truly thought about the medium in which we present pieces of work to be the message within the work. I, and I’m sure many other people as well, thought about the medium as a way to present the message, without being the message itself. Even as I read the first couple of pages, I was thinking of arguments to dispute the point of the article because I could not fathom how the medium could be the actual message of a piece as opposed to just presenting it. However, after finishing the article, I found myself agreeing with many of the issues presented. The way I see it, there can be a story or a message or an interpretation that can be represented by various forms of media. For example, a book can be made into a movie can be made into a Broadway show, etc. However, it will be different each time it is produced in a different medium. Therefore, the medium is taking on the message and, while it does present the message as well, it too becomes the message. In writing, the medium is the words that flow together ever so precisely and carefully to create something that people want to read. In film, although there is a written script that is another medium altogether, the camera manages to capture what the script alone cannot, and become something that people want to watch, instead of just listen to or read. Any medium can be deciphered to find the true message that the medium is when a work has been created. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cOt9UcYGOU

This music video is one of my favorites, and one that encompasses the idea of the medium being the message well. The video work is amazing, and the actions taken in the video could not have been done without the incredible camera work. In any other medium, this would have been a completely different work. The music in the video is necessary for the video to work, however, the video medium brings the whole piece together and creates the overall message (or general aesthetic) of the video. 

A Long-Winded Response to McLuhan's Understanding Media (including The Medium is the Message), because i'm obsessed with McLuhan - Caroline Salis

After reading McLuhan, I have become increasingly more aware of how connected I am to technology, specifically my phone.  In “The Medium is the Message”, Marshall McLuhan presents the concept that we are becoming increasingly more reliant on media on an everyday basis to the point that we have attained a heightened sense of responsibility and have lost the ability to be ‘aloof’ and ‘disconnected’

            I found the McLuhan reading incredibly stimulating; specifically in the discussion of how often we interact with media in everyday life. In the end, it is the process of mediation that brings the entire world together, despite its disparate parts. I was interested in McLuhan’s view of the globe as no more than a village. This idea brought me back to the first picture taken of Earth from space; the image reminded the public of how small the Earth we share is, which connects us to each other despite racial, moral, and cultural differences. The absence of this ‘six degrees of separation’ concept of media was prominent during my three hours of network ‘silence’. In response to the “heightened human awareness of responsibility” (McLuhan, 5), I began to wonder to what extent we can be aware of responsibility until we become over-stimulated by it and no longer affected. Is there a point where we have so much information thrown at us that we begin to ignore issues and hope someone more proactive will figure out a solution? Does this influx of information promote moral laziness? As McLuhan examined the impossibility to act aloof and dissociated, I was disillusioned by this effect that media has had on society. Does this mean that we are so connected to each other that we have lost the ability to ‘not care’? Are we really so constantly emotionally invested in every social operation? This being said, I wonder if this is truly such an evil thought; would society be better and more progressive without constant emotional involvement?

On page 318 of Understanding Media, McLuhan goes into detail about the gender roles of television actors and movie actors as well as the disparity between the two fan groups. On TV, most starts are men and are typically the “cool” characters while most movie stars are women because they are presented as “hot” characters. A Hollywood hotel owner notices an interesting disparity amongst the fan groups of both TV stars and movie stars. Typically, movie fans want to see their favorite stars as they are in real life, not as in their film roles whereas TV fans want to see the stars in their role. This disparity is a great example of the multi-sensory interaction that viewers have with television. Because they are interacting in multiple ways, they become more attached to the characters and plot lines rather than the actors themselves. In fact, the actors start to become synonymous with the characters due to this heavy audience interaction and multi-sensory experience.

            The Community episode “Remedial Chaos Theory” is perhaps overly participatory, to the point that we start becoming skeptical and untrusting of the plot, and television in general. The flow of images in “Remedial Chaos Theory” is quick and action/content-packed. With each new timeline created, the audience can expect certain details however they are both slightly and dramatically altered in certain scenarios that the viewer must give their complete and total attention. We become so invested in the story to the point that we become upset when the end scenario is not the true timeline; the last scenario shows everyone happy, healthy, and singing however the actual reality is that everyone suffered. Community teased us – we became too involved ad too ready to settle on the last scenario until they tricked us at the last minute. Luckily, because Community is a serialized sitcom, we know that by the next episode, Troy will be able to talk again, Pierce will be alive, and Jeff will have all of his appendages. Still, one can’t help but feel deceived by the order of the scenarios and the end results. However, McLuhan’s participatory view of television still stands, as the viewer does not feel deceived by the actual medium of television, but deceived by the plot of the program. The viewer is hurt that, after participating with multiple senses to the story of these seven people, there was not a happy ending like we had expected.

            The multi-sensory participatory nature of television as a medium is interesting; how come we do not feel the same way about cinema? Do the beats and commercials of a television program require a different kind of audience participation than cinema? Perhaps the human mind is not able to participate to the extent that it does with television with cinema because of the lengths of the modern movies in the television age. By the time the television evolved, movies were not short clips of trains or Mickey Mouse – they were lengthy, cinematic blockbusters. On the other hand, maybe the television is at fault for shortening our attention spans with all of the sensory experience it demands in a 30- or 60-minute episode. There are multiple theories as to why we participate with television the way we do or if television is simply a conspiracy medium to exploit the public for advertising time. Regardless, it cannot be contested that television, as a medium, is unique from every medium that came before it.

**I have the episode on my computer if we want to watch it in class!