CRD701: History and Theory of Communication Technology

Summaries

Manovich?s chapter What is New Media? first emphasizes the critical inclusion of the computer?s role in media production as a core defining aspect of the term new media he sets out to define. He proceeds to elaborate on this definition by identifying the differences between what he considers to be old media and new media through the five principles of new media (49). His breakdown of the principles: numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding examines each principle individually in regards to his ideas surrounding the new media revolution and touches briefly in some discussions on the effects the principles have or will have on our cultural studies. For those who have no background in media, old or new, Manovich also provides a brief, albeit, detailed explanation of the development of modern media (45). In conclusion he sets the stage for the continued discussion of new media?s intermingling of human and computer meanings (64) and the concept of cultural re-conceptualization.

Enzensberger?s Constituents of a Theory of the Media is a call to action to the masses to use new media to its fullest potential, acting not simply as the consumer or receiver of messages but as the producer and sender; ?[b]y producing aggressive forms of publicity which were their own, the masses could secure evidence of their daily experiences and draw effective lessons from them? (267). Enzensberger supports his argument with examinations of the manipulation and subversive powers of media and his suggested goal to ?end the isolation of the individual participants from the social learning and production process? (267). He also briefly discusses the differences between electronic media and written literature and artists as ?agents of the masses? (275).

In Baudrillard?s Requiem for the Media he counters Enzensberger?s belief that the masses should become producers and suggests that this would only be exacerbating the problem Enzensberger himself so vehemently opposes. Baudrillard argues that the true problem is in the communication model and the lack of opportunity for exchange by the receiver; ?the only revolution in this domain?lies in restoring th[e] possibility of response? (281). He highlights the possible opportunity for ?networklike communications models built on the principle of reversibility of circuits? (286) as a means for overcoming the current issue but also emphasizes that a symbolic exchange would offer an effective destruction of the codes of control and power to ultimately serve in ?breaching the univocality of the ?message? [and] in restoring the ambivalence of meaning? (287).

In Historicizing Media in Transition Uricchio mirrors Herodotus? experience of ?epistemological vertigo? (23) in the ?shift from medium specific histories?to media history? (23). Citing his own all-inclusive definition of media, Uricchio argues the need for new conceptualizations of digital media and our approach to writing its history. For continued study and writing of new media histories he notes the importance of ?close attention to the textures of the past informed by a sense of what has been structurally elided, by the ?that which has not been said?? [as] a central means of restoring an ideological edge to the historical effort? (35).

Bolter?s Theory and Practice in New Media Studies discusses the relationship of media theory and practice as it relates to the development/introduction of digital media and across the specific field of the humanities. He emphasizes that even ?among those who study online environments? (23) theorists are still having difficulty connecting the critiques and their own practices ?because the ideological theories of media are simply not framed in such a way as to promote practice? (24). Bolter suggests a combination ?hybrid form? (30) of cultural theory and the approach of visual designers as a potential methodology for new media studies.

Thoughts

Manovich

Can the new media revolution truly have a more profound effect on our society then any of the technological revolutions that came before it? I am struggling with that idea when I think about the significance of the printing press specifically. Or is it simply that we just don?t know ?enough? yet regarding the effects the ever-changing advances will have on culture, communication, etc.?

The technical aspects of Manovich?s chapter regarding the detailed nuances of old media versus new media were extremely dense for my initial introduction to new media; I am certain I lost important significance in portions of his arguments due to my lack of understanding of AL, BUZZwatch, VIR, Netomat browser, etc. and my concerns for not understanding these references. At the very least I felt the clarity he offered in the section What New Media is Not was my second chance at obtaining a better grasp on defining new media.

Enzensberger

I am intrigued by Enzensberger?s belief/reference that ?[p]recisely because no one bothers about them, the interests of the masses have remained a relatively unknown field? (268). He specifically notes Henri Lefebvre?s concept of ?spectacle? describing mass consumption. Have mass media studies and rhetorical analyses of advertising, window displays, billboards, etc. not addressed in detail the magnitude of the materialistic consumption of our current culture? Or have we missed the segment of ?private interiors? (268) Enzensberger notes as an entirely separate subset. Are the ?private interiors? untouched by what we?ve found in public mass media studies in so much as they would provide a different view/outcome of the receipt of those messages?

Baudrillard

In my opinion, Baudrillard?s theory of symbolic exchange is a lofty, optimistic concept similar to Enzensberger?s in that it would require action by the masses. Perhaps I am a cynic too often familiar with lackluster results when trying to move groups to action. Jordan and I talked briefly about this idea in relation to the upcoming election ? I can?t even quite imagine how the election process would look if the masses were to respond in full to the campaign communications for each candidate (and for the candidate they oppose!). Baudrillard?s idea is inspiring but lacks strength in that there is no further discussion on how to put the idea to work if it is a model we must consider. Even one concrete example of how the current communication model for a specific source of new media could be renewed allowing full reciprocity would have given more substantive force to his argument.

Uricchio and Bolter

I see many similarities among the discussions by Uricchio and Bolter. Together they argue the idea that we must be open to the creation (and future use) of new methodologies and theories if we?re to go anywhere with new media studies. Whether we?re examining how to write the histories or how to put theory in to practice the underlying theme for necessary adaptation is obvious. We can?t expect to use theories, concepts, or knowledge frameworks from the past for the research avenues that lie ahead.

Along these lines, according to Bolter ?teachers of writing have accepted new media as a part of their field? (26) but how limited is this acceptance? Has this changed since the writing of this article? How have American University departments, specifically outside of the humanities, embraced or rejected the rhetorical studies or examinations of new media? Is this class the very indication that funding at particular institutions (possibly land-grant institutions) has increased for the further advancement of new media theory and practice?

(posted by Melinda)