McLulahn's article response

My interpretation of the article is the following: “The medium is the message”- How we use the tool to create art is what is important- i.e a photograph versus a portrait; the message might be intended to be the same but the medium adds to it giving it its own meaning. The definition of the art or how it is interpreted depends on the medium. Unless you use the medium to create something it does not have the effect of giving off a meaning or we do not see it’s value until we use it to do something of human interaction or expression, like an electric light and surgery. Sarnoff says that the medium technology is not to be blamed for how our world has turned out but how we have used it. Again, how we use the medium creates the message. A robot is a medium of labor and we think of it as just that. But we should also realize that, as stated on the article, “The effect of the medium is made strong and intense just because it is given another medium as ‘content’”. In the robot’s case, the other medium would be architecture, logarithms, text, etc. This link talks about robots, automation, and how what we do with these robots are going to be the consequence of future unemployment. http://kottke.org/14/08/humans-need-not-apply