CRD701: History and Theory of Communication Technology

Summaries

Manovich attempts not necessarily to concretely define, but rather to delineate the qualities of New Media.  He says that New Media are typically defined as relying upon a computer "for distribution and exhibition, rather than [for] production" (p. 19), but then says that this is too limiting.  Instead, he broadens what New Media can be by providing a list of essential principles: Numerical Representation (they can be described mathematically and programmed), Modularity (each piece is made up of smaller, individual pieces), Automation (New Media can be made either entirely or in part automatically), Variability (the media object can "exist in different, potentially infinite, versions" (p. 36)), and Transcoding (translatable between cultural categories and concepts).  He goes on to describe 6 characteristics typically thought to be unique to New Media, but then demonstrates that each of the characteristics actually existed as pieces of older media.

Bolter attempts to reconcile the theory and the practice of new media.  He explains that theory and practice are traditionally separated, with a few exceptions.  He describes how New Media can and should be an exception, pointing out that "unlike the theorists of film and television, at least some new media theorists have the ability to become new media practitioners" (p. 23).  He believes that we can look to the poststructuralists for a model and create "a hybrid, a fusion of the critical stance of cultural theory with the constructive attitude of the visual designer" (p. 30).   

Enzensberger makes the claim that the electronic media have the ability to "mobilize" the masses (p. 261) and should b used to do so.  Since, according to Enzensberger, electronic media allow for the receiver to turn into a transmitter, the people should use the transmitter to send their own messages.  He provides a harsh criticism of the Marxists, accusing them of "Cultural Archaism" (p. 263).  He claims that they have "not understood the consciousness industry and have been aware only of its bourgeois-capitalist dark side and not of its socialist possibilities" (p. 270).  He presents a theory of the way that the "egalitarian" new media can be used for socialist ends, claiming that the new media are their own means of production.

Baudrillard's article is a response to Enzensberger.  He defends the Marxists' stance on new media and refutes Enzensberger's claim that the new media can be simply switched from receiver to transmitter.  Instead, Baudrillard claims that in order for the media to be useful for "revolution", they must "[restore the] possibility of response" (p. 281).  It is not enough to simply be able to broadcast a different message.  Instead, it is necessary to break "the monopoly of speech", which cannot be done if "one's goal is simply to distribute it equally to everyone" (p. 281).  He says that we need to move "beyond the categories of receiver and transmitter, whatever may be the effort to mobilize them through 'switching'" (p. 286).

Uricchio makes the argument that in order to best study new media, we should examine how older media were studied, specifically film.  This idea comes from Herodotus's discovery that Greek history actually had profound roots in Egyptian history.  Since the rise of film was an incidence of "media in transition" and new media creates a new transition, the two are naturally connected.  Uricchio claims that "Digitization and convergence have redefined our present as a moment of media in transition" (p. 32).  He also states that "historians can quite productively made use of those earlier transition moments when related forms of instability threw into question media ontologies" (p. 35).

Thoughts

            To me, what makes media "new" is not simply a new presentation, but rather a new way of thinking.  Each of these articles presents that in one way or another.  Manovich claims that "New media may look like media, but this is only the surface" (p. 48).  Under the surface is where we find new ways of thinking.  Manovich seems to believe that new media will literally make us think differently, Enzensberger and Baudrillard challenge the way we think about the uses of the media, and Bolter and Uricchio think the new media will alter the way that we study the media.
            Manovich says that new media have two layers: cultural and computer.  Since the two work together, they inevitably influence one another.  If new media is created and/or distributed by computers, computer logic will have a "significant influence on the traditional cultural logic of media" (p. 46).  He goes on to say that "new media"acts as a forerunner of cultural re-conceptualization (p. 47).  In other words, our own understanding of culture the media has been altered to fall more in line with the variability and programmability of the computer.  We can think differently about a film that we interact with online (e.g., Manovich's discussion of The Birds, p. 40), or our thinking can be "programmed" to follow a seemingly random path: As Manovich says, "we are asked to mistake the structure of somebody else's mind for our own" (p. 61).
            Enzensberger believes that if we can just change the way that we use the new media, they can be tools of revolution.  By "switching" our receivers into transmitters, we can take advantage of the "egalitarian structure" of the new media.  Since he believes centralized control of the new media is impossible, he wants to completely decentralize control and "make everyone a manipulator" of the media (p. 265).  Baudrillard, on the other hand, feels that equal distribution of the media is not the way to facilitate revolution.  Instead, we should fundamentally change the structure of the media.  Media use that allows for direct response is the only to facilitate change.  He says power belongs to those who can speak "in such a way as to exclude any response anywhere" (p. 281).  While the two are at odds on exactly what change needs to be made, the fact that a change in the use of the media is necessary draws them together.  I find Enzensberger's ideas compelling, but Baudrillard points out a major flaw: "mass ownership" of the media can lead to nothing more than "personalized amateurism" (p. 286).  While I think Baudrillard's pessimism detracts from his argument, he is probably closer to the truth than Enzensberger.  With the advent of the Web, practically everyone has the ability to broadcast their own message -- and we get videos of dancing gerbils instead of any semblance of revolutionary message.
                Bolter and Uricchio want to change the way that we study new media.  Bolter points out that new media have traditionally been lumped with mass media, but they are not the same thing.  Instead, since we can both study and practice new media, they are more versatile in an academic setting.  While American universities have tended to separate theory and practice, Bolter claims that our understanding of the disconnect between the two should be challenged if not shattered by the new media.  He says that the new media critic "will lead her viewers or readers to reevaluate their formal and cultural assumptions" (p. 30).  Bolter claims the new media applications can "refuse to follow the traditional hierarchy" (p. 28) of education.  New media provide us with different ways to consider writing and even create "a hybrid form of communication" (p. 29). 
                 Uricchio believes that, due to a transition in the media, our study of new media must change.  He claims that "old certainties are very much up for grabs" (p. 32).  For Uricchio, change is what should be driving our study of new media, saying that "media studies are very much in motion" (p. 32).  As the discipline itself changes, our way of viewing must change along with it.  He claimed that Herodotus was in "an epistemological vertigo" after his trip to Egypt and his thinking about history changed because of it.  We, too, face a difference in the way that we think.  The media are changing, and with that change is an alteration of the way we view not only media, but the way those media are produced and used, and the world in which we experience them.