COM257: Media History and Theory

Like many of our articles before this one, Farley begins detailing the history of the mobile telephone in order to establish an evolutionary context. He discusses it from the early stages of its life cycle, where at the time it had only existed in the newspapers. AT&T and Southwestern Bell were the two premiere phone companies responsible for pushing the technology out the door. The first breakthrough came in 1947 when Bell Laboratories’ “D.H. Ring, with help from W.R Young, articulated a true cellular radio system for mobile telephony in an internal company memorandum” (Farley 23). In the late 1960’s, Farley continues on describing Southwestern Bell’s research & development zeal in designing the first commercial cellular radio system. Motorola joined the fray in the early 70’s to compete with Bell in the hardware market, establishing a rivalry between the two. With the introduction of Intel’s microprocessors, this allowed for even further development of the technology. Farley describes how in 1978 we saw the development of the analog cellular system, which “proved a large cellular system could work” (Farley 27). This would be important later on in the development of different types of cellular networks, like the digital cellular network that came into play in the early 90’s.

For a long time there has always been a distinction between telephone networks and the internet. But now with Web 2.0 esque applications like Skype where you can call people over the internet, you see more of a blend between the two. Apple’s iPhone uses a 3G wireless network in order to access web content, however it still uses a traditional digital cellular network (in this case, AT&T’s). In terms of the future, all signs point towards 3G and its future iterations as the way of the future in terms of mobile communication. The infrastructure and speed is already there, but how does this affect the phone companies that are so invested in the aforementioned cellular networks? A quick browse of the biggest network’s websites (AT&T, Verizon, etc) tells me there’s no need to be worried, because each respective company offers high speed internet. I can only take that as a sign that those running these companies understand the future of mobile telecommunication, and it’s with the internet. I think the barrier to entry at this point is probably cost, but as it always goes with technology – it’ll be cheap one day.

Tim O'Reilly is this week's featured author, with his study, "What is Web 2.0".  The article's title poses a good question, one that netted over 135 million inquiries through the popular search engine Google in 2007, according to O'Reilly.  In his abstract, he teases its definition as "going beyond the page metaphor of Web 1.0 to deliver rich user experiences" (O'Reilly 17).  Web 2.0 is the web as a platform, "delivering software as a continually-updated service that gets better the more people use it, consuming and remixing data from multiple sources, including individual users, while providing their own data and services in a form that allows remixing by others, creating network effects through an 'architecture of participation'" (O'Reilly 17).  He draws up examples, citing BitTorrent, blogging, and Google among others as key components of the Web 2.0 world. 

The battle for Web 2.0 dominance began back in 2004, when software powerhouses Google and Netscape approached the web from two different standpoints.  Netscape tried to sell their web browser as the desktop application and attempted to establish a market for high-priced server products.  O'Reilly claims Google won the battle because of its competency in database management (one of the core competencies of Web 2.0 companies), and the ease of Google services to be run on any machine, through any browser.  This sort of modularity is also seen with the evolution from Akamai to BitTorrent.  Where as Akamai relied on high speed central sites, BitTorrent instead relies on a decentralized system where the service "automatically gets better the more people use it," just one of the several central Web 2.0 principles (O'Reilly 22).  O'Reilly continues on describing how the mega .COM companies made the transition from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0, largely contributing their success to them being "dynamic."  He stresses the importance of the "shift from software as artifact to software as service," and maintaining that service  (O'Reilly 30).

I'm always wary of popular terms like Web 2.0 and True HD, because they're typically empty words intended merely for marketing purposes.  While the web didn't see some sort of concrete upgrade to 2.0 status overnight, its been changing the last five years quite noticeably.  So now that we have Web 2.0, an ideal based on the idea that the web is dynamic and as deep as our imaginations, when will we see Web 3.0?  I'm curious if it'll be a true successor to 2.0 or something else intirely.  With O'Rilley's article outling the genius of Google, and other web pioneering companies, I have complete faith we're going to see some pretty incredible stuff in our lifetime; stuff that'll leave the demensions of our computer screens and our portable electronics and invade the space of life.

Janet Abbate tackles the immense history and complexity of the internet
with her article, "Popularizing the Internet".  She discusses the
internet's evolution from research tool, to a popular medium, and
everything far and in between.  While what we know today as the world
wide web wasn't created by one person, the credit for its creation (and
the logic that drives it) belongs to ARPA (Advanced Research Project
Agency).  While initially developed for military use, civilians got a
crack at it in 1983 when access was allowed through ARPANET.  This
split in the network, between the military oriented MILNET and the
research community centered ARPANET, was the catalyst for rapid
change.  By 1989, nearly 159,000 computers had access to the internet. 
At that time, you also saw the proliferation of LANs (Local Area
Networks), with the introduction of ethernet.  Said LANs could then
connect to the internet, contributing to its modularity, which in turn
contributed to its growth.  Amidst the chaos of its growing pains, ARPA
also introduced the TCP/IP and gateway infrastructures to foster
expansion.  In the next logical step, people thought about how they could make money off it.  With the privatization of the internet, you started to see the emergence of ISP's, and a rapidly developing internet culture.  

I want to say the first time I ever really surfed the web was in 1998.  All beknownst to me, this thing called the internet was exploding.  The AOL's, the .COM's, you name it.  There was this new sort of culture developing through the interwebs that I wish I had been old enough at the time to appreciate.  As time moved on, I became a more avid surfer but was still rather clueless.  Web 2.0 hit; still didn't understand what was going on, though I did understand that my experience was getting better.  The kinds of things I encountered on websites were more complex, more interesting.  At this point in time, we think of the internet as a place we "log in" to, or visit whenever we're at a computer.  With advancements in 3G, and other mobile technologies, it's becoming easier to access the internet.  I question whether or not there will be a day where the internet is no longer something, but everything.  A world completely connected, completely networked.  It's a scary thought, but for now, I'm content sitting in my comfy chair deciding on my own when I want to venture out into the networks of the world. 

Well, talk about what a nonlinear read that was.  All jokes aside "Nonlinearity and Literary Theory" by Epsen Aarseth begins as cryptic as anything we've read for this class thus far!  Regardless, Aarseth starts off stressing the importance of viewing nonlinearity and his article in general, from a mathematical standpoint.  This is because he believes "nonlinear dynamics on recent literary theory" to exist on a seperate level than nonlinear textuality (Pg 766).  He also notes the formal definition of the concept to be the mathematical branch of topology, and presents the idea of a texton as a basic element of textuality.  Aarseth continues on to another form of nonlinearity, that of hypertext.  The term hypertext and its intended use came about when scientists began running into problems keeping up with growing mountains of research.  Next he relates the idea of cybertexts, and what is essentially role-playing.  Whereas hypertexts appeared to exist on a more physical level, cybertexts are those that dictate the flow of action.  

Quite honestly, it's hard for me to explain in confidence what I read, so my personal response may not be so apt.  From what I understand, this idea of nonlinearity is very closely linked to Manovich's article regarding new media.  Of the five principles he describes, that of Variability is the most relatable.  I think it's interesting how he links the two ideas of hypertext and cybertext, despite how much more complex one may be over the other.  Even within cybertext, it's fascinating to see the evolution of its application in something like Adventure to the modern day "nonlinear" games.  Looking forward to class and some desperately needed clarification!

Briggs and Burke continue here with "the age of television."  Between 1947 and 1952, the number of televisions in American homes skyrocketed.  Business Week named 1948, in which more than a third of the population had a television, as none other than, "Television Year."  Briggs and Burke discuss the programming next, outlying key differences between American programming, and their British cousins.  Shows like Star Trek in the early 60's began to establish serious audiences, and expanded the breadth of newly pioneered television content.  Up until this point, you still had the United States leading the way in market penetration of television sets, but which the mid 1960's rolled around, the television phenomenon exploded worldwide as "powerful American television interests" began to look abroad (Briggs and Burke, 194).  The global audience grew to 750 million strong.  The medium wasn't without its critics though; many saw the television as a "reductive agency, trivializing the news as well as the other constituents of programming" (Briggs and Burke, 197).  Moving forward they discuss how the television influenced history.  For the first time ever, people were seeing significant world events unfold before them on screen.  For the first time in history, people could catch a glimpse of war from their living room's with the Vietnam War.  Even Martin Luther King's assassination was caught on tape.  723 million people around the world watched the first man step on the moon.  

Briggs and Burke note an interesting point regarding how film and television essentially shared an inverse relationship.  As television popularity rose, film diminished.  While film had been around a little longer than the television, I would still put them on the same level Old-New Media wise.  The figures they state here are nothing short of astounding- cinema attendance was at 90 million a week.  Adjusted for $7 ticket prices, that equates to something like $630 million per week, which is insane.  With the proliferation of the television, that number fell to 47 million people a week (which is still leaps and bounds ahead of where we are today).  Comparing today's numbers against those back then brings about a curious question.  Are today's numbers generally lower because people have spread themselves thin across too much media, or have they simply abandoned old media for new media?  How will the internet continue to affect audience numbers in both television and film?  I think it's hard to tell.  Cars are still around since the plane was invented, after all. 

Briggs and Burke open discussing the history of broadcasting.  While
print had existed for some time, it was the radio that flourished during the
late 30's.  While largely seen as a medium of entertainment, it wasn't
until the second world war that its uses diversified.  In that time, a
"war of words" was being waged, with both democratic and totalitarian
countries using the microphone as a weapon of great power.  They discuss
how some leaders used the microphone as a megaphone, while others used it to connect
with people in their living rooms.  Moving on they discuss the different
systems, from British and American to the Canadians.  Some were recognized
as entertainment centered, while some represented a national identity. 
The introduction of the transistor radio in the 1950's and its proliferation
augmented by the booming car market, established the norm in radio programming-
music with some news.  

What fascinates me about radio, is its time tested quality.  When the
television audience began to grow in the late 40's radio saw a sizable downturn
in listeners tuning in.  One would think it would've dissappeared by now,
but in reality, its probably stronger than ever (well, comparitively speaking,
terrestial radio hasn't been fairing well in recent times).  I say this
because of two things: satellite radio in the form of Sirius and XM, and the
podcast.  Satellite radio has the range of AM and the quality of FM. 
Its programming also benefits from a sustained subscriber base, and is not regulated
by the FCC.  Podcasts, while not delivered in the form of traditional
radio,are unique in the way of mobility.  They're also absolutely
convenient- one doesn't have to tune in at 6 a.m every day to listen to the
full show, they just pause, rewind, and watch it whever they like!  The
way we recieve and listen to our radio really has changed.

(sorry about the funky formatting, when I paste from word it does this.  I normally don't, but the internet crashed when I tried to submit, bleh)

Carey's article centers around the development and impact of the telegraph, claiming it to be "the least studied communications technology" (Carey, 201).  The telegraph was special not only because it jump started the electrical goods industry, but because it changed the fundamental ways in which we approached communication.  The telegraph brought forth new forms of language, conceptual systems, and "freed communication from the constraints of geography" (Carey, 204).  Carey continues to dote upon the telegraph's place in history, claiming it was a serious factor in what caused colonialism to evolve into imperialism.  When the transatlantic cable was laid in 1870, the telegraph brought forth coherent empires "based on a coherent system of communication" (Carey, 212).  As such, the capability to expand and the capacity to rule were made possible to the nation's of the world.  Trade was also affected because the telegraph evened out the playing field, making geography irrelevant.  Despite this, Carey deems its most important point to be that the telegraph marked the "decisive separation of 'transportation' and 'communication'"(Carey, 213).

Carey's point about imperialism in the late 19th century with the proliferation of the telegraph struck a chord with me.  People always say great nations will always fall, blah blah blah, the United States is next!  What did the great fallen nations of the past, like the Romans, Greeks, and Egyptians all have in common?  A lack of modern communication!  How much different would our world be today if someone telegraphed the last Roman emperor with the news that the western empire was falling to barbarians?  Or (to introduce a more modern technology) someone called Julius Caesar's cellphone to warn him that Brutus planned to betray him?   Maybe Latin wouldn't be a dead language.  As we discussed in class, the idea of seperating information from physical restraints is truly an essential evolution in communication; it's a requisite in the type of crowded, volatile world we live today.   

Micheal Hobart and Zachary Schiffman's (will be abbreviated as H&S for sanity's sake) article, "Printing and the Rupture of Classification" leads off into the discussion of the evolution of print, starting with the middle ages.  Not only did it spread literary works to the masses, it "enabled Europeans to secure their heritage of classical texts against the threat of loss or corruption, thus helping to make the Renaissance revival of antiquity permanent and contributing to our modern attitude toward the past" (Hobart, 89).  Along with intellectual advancement, there also came confusion, and a disorganization of knowledge.  Later in the article they return to the proliferation of printed works, discussing "information overload" and the danger of that material not assimilating.  This is what's known as the rupture of common place thought that "threatened the philosophical closure achieved by the ancient greeks" (Hobart, 103).

These sort of panics always seem to arise with the evolution of some new form of technology, especially one as world changing as print.  As  H&S said, the amount of printed materials produced in a few short years outnumbered the last 1000 years of scribe work.  You'd think this sort of information overload would happen all over again with the advent of the internet, but the informational norms were already established and widely accepted, avoiding the issue altogether.  We as humans, as well as our culture, seem to have caught up, so to speak, with the advancement of informational technology.  We have access to so much information through a seemingly infinite amount of venues, yet we remain (for the most part) on top of it all. 

"The Condition of Virtuality" from Katherine Hayles opens discussing a red wire hanging out of a ceiling tile at a technology convention that essentially wiggles around the more network traffic it detects; it's very similar to what we discussed in class, if not the same thing.  Metaphorically speaking, the wire acts as a sort of wind chime although Hayles believes it's more or less a bridge between materiality and information.  Forming the bulk of her writing, the idea of Virtuality is defined by Hayles as "the cultural perception that material objects are interpenetrated by information patters" (Halyes, 69).  She spends a great deal of time distinguishing between the two: material is something physical, something that cannot be shared whereas information is abstract, immediate and limitless.  Despite all their differences she draws them back together noting that the "efficacy of information depends on a highly articulated material base" (Hayles, 72).  She continues onward, bringing attention to already debunked theories regarding the relationship between materiality and information within the human body and psyche.  She establishes links to postmodernism and challenges the reader to embrace virtual writing.  

I've noticed that the game, Myst, from the early nineties has been brought up on more than one occasion in the readings for this class.  It's always being linked to these sort of paradigms in communication media and I can't help but wonder what more they could explore were they to examine something more modern.  I understand the publishing date of these articles are from an earlier time, but what would Hayle have to say about the complexities of modern Massively Multiplayer Online games like World of Warcraft?  Myst, while revolutionary for its time, is arcaic in its game design.  In the modern MMO, the idea of people interacting with thousands of others in virtual and realistic, living worlds (I'm talking weather, sunsets, the chirp of birds in the early morning) is simply astounding.  Hayle discusses people getting lost in some sort of imaginative trance when they read a physical book, but what about people who completely absorb themselves into these virtual realms of fantasy for days on end?  I'd imagine a modern retooling of these sort of articles would dig up some really fascinating stuff. 

In Manovich's article, "the poetics of augmented space", he discusses how humans experience various spatial forms and more specifically, augmented space.  Manovich defines augmented space as "the physical space overlaid with dynamically changing information" (Manovich, 220).  He lists a series of technologies that aim to deliver data to and from a physical space, like cellspace technologies and computer/video displays.  In conjunction with said technologies, he lists a series of research paradigms that aim to enhance the augmented space experience.  Everything from ubiquitous computing and tangible interfaces to E-paper, it is this kind of evolutionary technology that's driving the augmented space revolution.  Manovich returns once more to the idea of a frame, or window into a virtual 3D space.  While we're all familiar with being immersed in such an enviroment, he begs us to dream outside the box where 2D and 3D meet.  He juxtaposes the idea of contemporary art with augmented space as well as the creative force behind modern architecture.  In the words of Manovich, "the Renaissance painting became an animated medieval illustrated book" (Manovich, 229).

Flipping through a USA Today, I stumbled across a press release detailing information about Google's new phone, simply titled, the G1.  For many years, Google has been on the cutting edge of informational technology, at least from a software perspective. With their foray into the cellular phone market, they're also bringing their signature informational technology.  The device essentially accesses your email, instant messages, contact lists, web search history and geographic location in order to figure out what sort of advertisements to send you, and most importantly, when.  Manovich's article on augmented space made me think of Google's new phone almost immediately.  While not quite the pipe dream present in the aforementioned research paradigms, it's a solid step in that direction, a direction where media is in a permanent state of change and with us at every turn.  Manovich mentions the Spielberg film, Minority Report, which in many ways, presents similiar ideas seen in his idea of augmented spaces.  Spielberg's vision of the future in that film is consistently amazing because you can see the very things Manovich discusses, this constant flow of evolving information.  Take it that one experiences that vision at the cineplex, and you've got yourself one hell of a meta-level. 

In Kellerman's chapter labeled "Technologies," he (is he a he?)
discusses the evolution of mobile technology from automobiles to the
internet.  He draws parallels between the frameworks of such technologies,
and marks their social impact.  Kellerman quickly dives into a Development
- Structure - Operation paradigm specific to automobiles and telecommunications
"as a means for personal spatial mobility" (Kellerman, 74). 
Development deals with the idea of standardization in how certain things need
rules in order to increase adoption rate.  Kellerman uses the example of
the first set of automobiles to hit the market, namely, Ford's Model-T. 
In order for a driver's license, in which one could operate any designated set
of vehicles, to make any sense, there needs to be an automobile operational
standard.  In the case of the internet, you need a specific TCP/IP
transmission protocol.  Moving on, Kellerman gets into structure, which
includes quite literally the physical infrastructure of communication and
transportation systems.  The idea presented here is simple enough, you
need roads for automobiles just as much as you need cables, wires etc. for the
internet.  Kellerman outlines another difference here between
transportation systems (like automobiles) and something like the
internet.  With the internet, problems that arise are easily handled
because of its flexibility.  With heavy road traffic, it's much more
difficult to physically correct the problem.  Operation is the final step,
and of which components are also based on physical infrastructures.  These
structures consist of three layers, "namely the establishment of networks
that allow flows through them, and that, on their parts, represent use"
(Kellerman, 84).

In all honestly, half of this reading blew over my head and for me to
attempt to summarize it would've been disastrous.  Whatever the case, I
understand Kellerman's logic he presents with his Development - Structure -
Operation paradigm.  So many times I've been foiled by a lack of
infrastructure and despite the differences he outlines, it happens as many
times in the internet word as it does out on the roads.  Why can I not get
broadband internet?  Because there are no cable lines to the house! 
Why does it take 20 minutes to get there when it's only a mile from the
house?  Because the most convenient road is under reconstruction.  You see this sort of thing in the Army as
well.  Anytime some new weapon tech is
invented, it goes through a very similar standardization process.  Time from initial development to actual deployment
can take years simply because of the lack of infrastructure.  From a communication perspective, it works
the same way.  Anytime a unit goes into
foreign territory, it has to, from scratch, set up an entire network ranging from
phone lines to satellite communications. 
And I think it’s funny Kellerman should mention that people don’t care
about the behind-the-scenes business as long as their connection is up, and
usable.  It’s funny only because it’s
true!

In this week's selection, Manovich moves on to forms and explores the idea of a database.  Leading off he introduces a company called "Razorfish," which specializes in interface design.  He mentions the young age of nearly every employee present (a parallel to new media perhaps?) and notes the physical form of the work space they inhabit.  While Manovich never explicitly states this, what he encountered at Razorfish is analogous to the very concept of a database.  Workers are scattered around without any apparent organization; a programmer sits next to a web designer who sits next to an interface designer.  He even goes so far as to say that the "design of the space functions as a metaphor for computer culture's key themes: interactivity, lack of hierarchy, modularity" (Manovich, 190).

The database, the first of two forms, is something used to store any sort of data, like a CD-ROM for instance.  Manovich claims it to be "the center of the creative process in the computer age" (Manovich, 200).  The opposite of database, narrative, is the second form.  Narrative can be seen as a virtual interactive 3D space, like in computer games; it is linear and the polar opposite of database.  In the early 90's, the database form bloomed with the proliferation of the internet.  The dynamic, every changing nature of the web, as well as the concept of links, contributed to the anti-narrative logic of the internet.  As such, "the result is a collection, not a story" (Manovich 196).

Moving on, Manovich goes more abstract, discussing syntagm and paradigm.  He differentiates between the two, claiming syntagm is real or explicit while paradigm is imagined, or implicit.  The juxtaposition of these two things here harkens back to his New Media argument.

All this talk of GUI's, interfaces, forms etc. has really got me thinking about putting some hard earned money into an ipod touch.  Not because I really need one, but because it's one of the smoothest and intuitive GUI's I've ever seen in a handheld.  Thinking about this got me thinking about Apple, and how Razorfish's new company philosophy looks strikingly similiar to Apple's.  A company longing for product design and providing "total user experience" sounds just like the big white apple that everyone loves so much.  I found it interesting too that the actual physical layout of the Razorfish workspace mimics their product's design aesthetics.  The same sort of idea could be seen in that old infomercial for the Xerox workstation we saw in class, with the GUI imitating an actual work desk.  I'm guilty of it too, but I think too many of us are dismissive of Manovich's points.  They seem redundant only because they're all related.  I can pull a form of new media off a CD-ROM, turn it into a narrative form, and spit it back out in some physical fashion to become old media.  What I think we can all get from this is that media itself is an intrinsic force, only growing more complicated and transcendent as time goes on. 

The ever intricate Manovich is back, this time discussing interface and what it means to the ever evolving world of media.  He argues we are in "the presence of a new literary form for a new medium, perhaps the real medium of a computer" (Manovich, 97).  Manovich introduces the idea of HCI (Human-Computer-Interface) and how the role of a computer is shifting from "being a tool to a universal media machine" (Manovich, 79).  He also goes into how the culmination of cinema, the printed word, and HCI, in how they shape the language of cultural interface.  Cinema does what text cannot do in the presentation of images and movement, all existing within the proverbial frame.  The printed word is a universal tool of communication, providing a direct connection from human to computer and vice versa.  HCI is consisent in principle, exisiting as both a representation and a control.  Manovich's philosophizing is followed by his discussion of the physical screen through which we experience and interact with media.  He comments on the dynamic nature of the screen, how it can display a work of art in proportionate form while at the same time display a serious of windows for more invovled usage.

What I found most interesting is the idea Manovich presents of the frame, and what we interpret to be inside that frame.  He akins a computer screen to that of a framed painting, or a window.  There's a term in the A/V world associated with television screens known as the "Picture Window Effect" which is simply the idea that the image looks so stunningly real that one could reach their hand through it and touch what's on the other side.  Manovich juxtaposes the conflict of printed word and cinema in the screen itself; one "pulls the computer screen towards being dense and flat information surface, while another wants it to become a window into a virtual space" (Manovich, 96).  With these two forces evolving together, he believes we're witnessing the arrival of some new "cultural meta language" that'll make it as significant if not more so than text and cinema.  While he shows us how amazing the evolution is, another thing to think about is that the way we physically interact with a computer interface hasn't changed at all since the advent of the personal computer.  You have a monitor, mouse, and keyboard, the same things that wow'd my parent's generation as children (well, maybe half a generation up).  Things like webcams have allowed for more advanced interaction, but it's largely remained stagnant.  I wonder if this will remain the trend 20 years from now?  Computer media itself is changing, will input methods innovate and keep up? 

I want
to preface this with the fact I made the mistake of browsing through the other
blog posts over the past couple days, as well as one other…obvious thing.  What I’ve come to realize as I’m writing this
is that what I planned on writing is going to be horribly redundant.  Awesome, now that I got that out of the way
and the clock has struck midnight, let’s begin. 

In his article, Manovich presents the idea of “New
Media” and believes we are in “the middle of a new media revolution— the shift
of all culture to computer-mediated forms of production, distribution, and
communication” (Manovich 19).  According
to him, New Media essentially exists in digital form, whereas Old Media is
analog; ever evolving computerization makes the divide between new and old,
clear.  New Media is even interactive,
contrasting Old Media in the way that “its order of presentation is fixed” (Manovich
55).  He outlines 5 principles (Numerical
Representation, Modularity, Automation, Variability, Transcoding), detailing
the fundamental attributes of New Media. 
He begins small, discussing the first machines that could compute
information, and how they only satisfied, say distribution, forgoing other
principle ideas like production and communication.  Manovich emphasizes building blocks in how
simple things are slowly built upon one another in order to carry out more
complicated tasks in the future.  The
advancement of computers itself mirrors this idea, as well as the progression
of New Media.

Personally I was fascinated by how Old Media itself literally
aided the creation of New Media.  The use
of used 35mm film, which is considered analog, as a sort of programmed punch
card for what is essentially a digital device, I found intriguing.  The thought of an old image burned into
celluloid juxtaposed with a series of holes used for a computing device makes
for the perfect convergence of progressive technology.  In the modern Hollywood scene there are
frequently debates over whether to shoot a movie on 35mm film stock or shoot it
digitally.  Proponents of shooting on
film swear by a more illustrious picture, and one might say superior.  On the flipside, digital is without a doubt easier and faster.  This conflict is somewhat
paralleled in Manovich’s article; with the advent of the internet, and other
mass communication tools, things have in fact become easier.  I find it very interesting that while New
Media is the future, Old media is still here to stay. 

By: Will Lamb