In Marshall Mcluhan's lecture, The Medium is the Message, he touches upon a number of interesting points for discussion with regards to understanding why we live the way we do, or understanding the ways of society itself. He is concerned with all types of medium, especially the electronic medium such as radio and television, as he sees them as "an extension of our central nervous system" and argues that they lead to "electrical tribalization of the West".
One of the first things he talked about was literacy. As a form of awareness, it is a highly specialist and objective sort of thing. A literate person can stand back and view situations in an objective manner. However, a television person has no objectivity because television is subjective and totally involving. I guess in terms of understanding the ways of society and why we live the way we do, I see why Mcluhan talks about television this way. If we are constantly watching television, it is easy for us to be influenced by the ways that society is portrayed, especially since we can see it visually. They portray value judgements, which are subjective because they are so personal. However, what I don't understand is why radio people would be far more literate than television people. Aren't radios subjective, too? I'm not too sure how radios were like back in the days, but I'd imagined that before podcasts were out, people used radios for entertainment just as we do with television. Would they not portray some forms of value judgements (news cast, music stations, etc)? I just find it interesting that both radio and television are the same forms of medium for entertainment, yet one is said to be more subjective than the other.
What I really liked during this part of the discussion was Mcluhan's explanation of reading. He talks about how any word has so many meanings and to select one meaning in the context of other words requires rapid guessing, to make decisions really fast. This ties in well to the fact that value judgments confuses people a lot (as discussed in the lecture).
Another thing that interested me during the discussion was the topic of advertising and commercials. Mcluhan explains that adverts are a very great art form. They are not private, but corporate. The advertiser's main goal is to make an effect in capturing our attentions. This can be said with any artists, too — they set a "trap" for our attention. A great question that was brought up in this part of the conversation was whether Mcluhan believes the "masterpieces" or popular ads of the present time will still be as popular in the coming years. Mcluhan replied with, "We'll know better in 50 years." This made me giggle, but he does have a point. It is hard to distinguish whether an advert, or any sort of artwork (if that's the right way to put it?) will still gain the same amount, or more, interests and attentions in the future. We don't have a criteria in measuring popularity, and I believe it's because popularity is subjective. Take for example this 1970 Coca-Cola ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m1NeogMh1JI At the time, it might have been popular amongst the viewers, but if it was aired now it would not have caught a lot of people's attentions for a number of reasons. Firstly, we are so used to the technology we have that enables us to create more crisp, HD videos. We also implement a lot of cuts/jump cuts in advertising just so that the viewers can get a fresh scene every time. In this 1970 advert, the advertiser used a lot of long takes and cross-dissolve/cross-fade transitions between the footage so the pacing feels a lot slower. As a comparison, watch this 2014 Coca-Cola ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUzPwIP9BqE There are more cuts between scenes in this video, and other elements that are used to keep the viewers interested.
No comments:
Post a Comment