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?