CRD701: History and Theory of Communication Technology

Manovich spends the chapter defining
new media.  With new media, ?the computer
becomes a media processor,? (26). 
Manovich identifies several principles of new media: numerical
representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding, and notes
characteristics he does feel not new media possesses.

            Enzensberger
argues media is a powerful tool for mobilization: the dominant powers try to
limit the mass?s ability to use media for this reason.  However, he claims simply having access to
media does not empower the masses.  They
must use them effectively to not only transmit messages to one another but to
explicitly network and mobilize as a collective group. 

            Baudrillard,
on the other hand, argues that Marxist theory is unfit for discussing new media.  He emphasizes that the media is not simply a
medium for conveying different positions and ideologies but is intricately tied
to the dominant power that produced it. 
Any use of the medium produces communication in accordance with and in
support of the dictates of the dominant power. 
Genuine communication, that necessary for subversive action, is
ambivalent but immediate.

            Urrichio
discusses how discussions of media and its history have evolved, focusing
particularly on film studies to make his point. 
Cultural studies has led to new conceptions of early cinema.  Scholars have to confront how contextuality
and their own biases affect their work. He notes how critical examinations of
media in periods of uncertainty, like early cinema, may guide scholars studying
new media in its period of uncertainty.

            Bolter
asserts that a problem in new media studies is that theory is separate from
practice.  Critical theories in
particular have contributed to this rift?directly influencing practice is not
their goal.  Today, even critical
theorists should embrace new media: it is not mass media, but consumers can
become producers.  He concludes by
calling for theorists, who now apply their theories of new media in pedagogy,
to start applying their theories to their own practice.

            Like
Enzensberger, I believe new media gives people subversive power.  What comes to mind for me is how Youtube and
similar websites can be used to magnify the foibles and injustices perpetrated
by those in position in power.  This
occurred with Katrina and even the infamous Don Imus incident: this technology
gave easy access to individuals to scrutinize those in power.  In the case of Imus, MediaMatters.org not
only put Imus? comments online but alerted many news organizations and civil
rights leader immediately of the incident. 
Baudrillard would insist using this medium only affirmed the power of
the dominant group, but I am not sure how his position would hold water with
this example.

            I
found Manovich?s discussion of how discussions of the mind are often influenced
by technology particularly interesting: I actually found this to be true myself
when surveying the history of psychology. 
An example he could have included is how computer technology influenced
the early conceptions of the mind postulated by cognitive psychologists.   Theorists in the 60s and 70s compared the
mind to a computer, using terminology such as input, output, information
processing, noise, coding, and decoding. 
Models portrayed the mind as a closed circuit.  When brain imaging technology emerged,
however, cognitive psychologists began adopting a new model and terminology to
discuss the mind: the mind-as-brain metaphor took over and is still popular
today.  Neural networks and connectionist
models are now used to describe the mind.

~Zach Rash