CRD701: History and Theory of Communication Technology

[rhetor's note: summary and commentary will overlap, much like Manovich's cultural and computer layers of new media]

The Readings

Reading Manovich?s principles led me to hope, early on in the chapter, for an overarchingly simplistic definition of new media that can serve my research purposes, but one that I thought would easily be shown to be inadequate: new media is programmable. Conveniently, Manovich himself asserts this claim as the most crucial principle of digital representation (52), though he provides an adequate sampling of the five categories he assigns to new media. Of these, and to me, modularity and variability made for the most compelling treatments of new media. New media comprises independent parts that can be removed, edited, or rearranged without completely unmaking the project as a whole. Manovich calls this the ?fractal structure of new media? (31). Of the misconceptions of new media?what new media is not?Manovich dwells the longest on the idea of interactivity, partially because it is a nebulous term and partially because it is his most difficult case to make. Interactivity, according to Manovich, need not be defined as something action- or physically-based; interaction can be psychological as well, though this level of interaction is assumed and almost automatic (e.g., ?filling-in, hypothesis formation, recall, and identification? (57)). I?m wary of subsuming the psychological into ?interactivity,? especially if it?s done so to reestablish cinema?s importance to new media ad nauseum. I also take issue with Manovich taking issue with the ?random access? misconception of new media. He attempts to show how several cinema technologies already provided for accessing ?any data element equally fast,? such as the Phenakisticope, the Zootrope, the Zoopraxiscope, the Tachyscope, and Marey?s photographic gun (51). However, none of these gained any recognition or staying power in media users today, nor do they provide the same level of random access that we get with new media. While I accept his assaults on the other misconceptions of new media, and accept his use of cinema for support, I must draw my pixilated line in the digital sand here.

Enzensberger raises an interesting point about the contrast between producer and amateur. ?Private production for the media is no more than licensed cottage industry. Even when it is made public it remains pure compromise? (266). The public forums allotted to media producers of his time relied on something similar to Manovich?s concept of automation?action and media can only be produced according to a pre-established set of conditions (e.g., the video game fighter can only fight back, not discuss Baudrillard while playing chess). I think his cynicism might be slightly altered if he spent two or three hours on YouTube today, subscribing to channel after channel of unmediated media. Of course, he may find himself quickly adrift in a sea of mediocre media, as ?proper use of the media demands organization and makes it possible? (267). Whether the social Web is organized enough to effect the democratization of media is a subject that requires much more than a single blog post. Again, Enzensberger speaks to Manovich?s observation that ?the problem [is] no longer how to create a new media object?[but] how to find an object that already exists somewhere? (35). Political and effective action is drowning in a sea of new media oversaturation. And Enzensberger maintains a decidedly anti-technological deterministic position vis-à-vis the potential of new media, insisting that the means of production alone won?t move the wheels of history; it comes back to the application of people-driven organization to ?force the media to comply with the logic of their actions? (269). Though Enzensberger is slightly off the mark in predicting where the next new media revolution will come from technologically (collotype? really?), he is a gifted prognosticator to suggest that the masses, with a little direction, will clamor for more interactivity to democratize media. Enter the social Web (painfully over categorized as ?2.0?) and the unfettered production and dissemination of media that challenges?if not unseats?the monolithic grip of power-hungry bourgeois media outlets.

As a follow-up to Enzensberger, Baudrillard critiques his predecessor?s understanding of the Left?s relationship to media, but agrees with him by characterizing the media as anti-communication because of the lack of feedback from its audience. To regain egalitarian communication through new media, the feedback loop has to be restored. However, Baudrillard parts ways here by arguing that the mere restoration?or even redistribution?of media communication feedback is not enough of a revolution. Communication ?must be able to exchange, give, and repay itself? (281). Depending on the democratization of media production by giving everyone with a voice the means to project it only results in a cacophony of idiots. But Baudrillard is careful to point out that Enzensberger is not advocating the mere increase in the number of transmitters; rather, the former observes that the latter envisioned ?video systems at the disposal of political groups? as one example of this redistributed mass new media. However, Baudrillard further castigates Enzensberger?s reliance on an ill-fitting model of new media communication, one that stubbornly depends on limiting categories of receiver and transmitter to advance its hypotheses. Instead, Baudrillard advances a model of ?simultaneous response? (287), one in which transmitter, receiver, and code all fade out of the process. This model aligns Baudrillard somewhat neatly with VR advocate Jason Lanier, whom Manovich introduces briefly to discuss the ?single mental space that is shared by everyone? in which simultaneous response is possible because communicative relationships are freed from the shackles of language and symbols (59).

Urrichio, like Manovich, proposes that we?re better situated to study the implications of new media if we consider the developments that led up to existence: namely, cinema. Without cinema, there would be an incomplete conception of ?new media,? just like (as Herodotus realizes) without Egypt, the accomplishments of Greece would seem without proper context. Urrichio provides a calibrated bearing of media?s rise in status through the historicultural themes of identity, cohesion, and direction (26). Interestingly, though, Urrichio brings to light what Manovich fails to about early cinema?s influence on new media?it was largely placed in a low position in cultural studies when it first emerged on the landscape. It wasn?t until early cinema was positioned within ?intertextual and intermedial networks, acquiring meaning and possibility through grounded historical positioning rather than hindsight? (28). Here, Urrichio crystallizes his analogy to Greece?s self-awareness and framing of its relationship to Egypt. And he, like Herodotus before him, acknowledges that his retracing of media?s rise in importance belies an intentional perspective to focus the reader?and history?s collective memory?on certain aspects over others (?to give the dominated a voice? (34)) in a direct effort to establish a toehold for early cinema?s advocates and heroes (like the quotidian projectionist) without relying on established historiographical hierarchies to do so.

Bolter discusses how new media has been embraced in the humanities as both a theoretical playground and as a way to lay claim to continued relevancy within the Academe. (Richard Lanham has written extensively on the latter topic, especially in his 2006 work, The Economics of Attention.) Bolter clearly delineates the use of ?theory? in the humanities from its use in other disciplines like computer science, mathematics, or even graphic design by stating that, in the latter fields, ?theory always affirms practice, and practice justifies theory? (16). He does so to reveal an important distinction about the humanities? theory of new media: we explore theory ?to critique practice or to deconstruct it altogether? (17). Humanities scholars?film critics in particular?acknowledge that, unlike graphic designers or computer scientists, they will not contribute to the existing body of media over which they theorize (22). Bolter raises this point to draw a parallel to cultural studies critics who immerse themselves in digital media, as they follow the same pattern already established for cinema theorists.

That said, I?m impressed by Manovich?s categorization of new media and the ways in which it overlaps with the other assigned authors, as described previously. I take issue with a number of his assertions?such as the notion that ?interactivity? in new media can include the psychological as well (57) or that old media allowed for the same level of random access as new (51)?but his treatment of new media seems more applicable in more contexts than the rest, which I realize fits neatly within his parameter of variability. We can see connections that sync Manovich with Baudrillard, Urrichio, Bolter and even Enzensberger, depending on how we rearrange his five categories. He?s kind of like Boggle that way.

Extras
***Alternative titles for this blog post:

• ?Why Enzensberger Would Poke You on Facebook?


• ?Baudrillard > Enzensberger?


• ?Why Manovich Will Defend Cinema ?til His Death?


• ?Why Bolter Makes Sense?


• ?Why Urrichio Makes Me Feel Like A Greek Sometimes?