For a final alternative, use this quotation — “Love is downgraded to romance.” — as an opening to try to explain the overall argument(s) of the chapter.
Downgrading love to romance is, I think, more obvious when you've been in love. Love isn't exciting, it's not a bunch of roses or fighting with Matthew McConaughey until he chases you down in the airport, it's not something that follows the plot of the movies. At least that's my experience.
Adorno and Horkheimer are talking about the representation of human relationships through the culture industry. Love becomes romance when romance films and shows begin to tell the masses what "real" love is - it's roses and Matthew McConaughey, or the taming of the shrew (see McClintock!, for example). When we're told what certain emotions look like, or certain human relationships, we're more likely to act in what is considered appropriate ways. I can remember going to a funeral and a wedding as a child and trying to figure out how I was supposed to behave - I relied on the culture industry's representation of normative behavior to figure it out.
(An example I refer to based on my own, very Western upbringing, is that "there's no crying in baseball", or really, ever. Crying is a sign of weakness and weakness is unacceptable, regardless of gender. This is a lesson that I work every day to forget - not because I cry every day, but because I have cried twice in the last four years, and one of those times I had to make myself cry by drinking a beer and watching Steel Magnolias (yes, I get the irony of exploring representation of emotion and relationships throught the culture industry while using a film as an example for how I can become more "cultured"). Le sigh.)
Generalize about how you might apply what you've read in the Benjamin and the Adorno and Horkheimer: describe (again quickly!) a media object you would like sometime to analyze, and add a sentence or three about what our background-theory readings allow or encourage you to say about the object.
Actually, to combine all three of them, I'd like to analyze an episode of Monty Python's Flying Circus. The reproduction of images, often popular or historical images, in the cartoons, could be really interesting for exploring the aura of the art object, particularly one that has been completely altered for the sake of a different audience. Python often uses images of high art and high culture, but repurposes them for the masses.
Monday, February 28, 2011
Monday, February 21, 2011
Barthes, Language, and Communication
Well, I think my biggest tripping point is that I never took a linguistics class. There are terms in here that I'm familiar with, and I'm following it just fine, but then all of the sudden there's an example that I don't understand at all. Usually the examples are the best way for me to understand something, so I can see a concept in practice, but Barthes' examples (with the exception of the car window example) are more confusing than the concepts. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding the concepts.
For the two chapters, I find the fact that they're referring to each other pretty useless, since I'm just as bewildered by both of them when they're talking about Luhmann. I think the "Language" article almost explained it to me, but then I took a break from reading it because it gave me a headache and I lost the train of thought that illuminated what Luhmann was saying. I never got it back fully. After the third reading of both chapters, though, I started to get it. I think that what makes this difficult for me is that I'm used to having a synchronous conversation about concepts that I don't understand and negotiating my understanding in the moment, rather than returning hours later. Mentally, I'm like a dwarf in "The Lord of The Rings", dangerous at short distances, but not cut out for long distances. I have no attention span for the long haul, and these chapters require the long haul. I'll keep reading them to see if I can understand any more than I do now.
I do find the historical/theoretical groundings provided on the course website very helpful for overcoming some of my confusion.
The concepts I do have a hold on in these readings are Saussure's (which spellcheck keeps trying to make "Sausage", so if I miss one, it's supposed to say "Saussure"). I understand the signifier and signified, and the signification, and I get the little chart that moves to the idea of myth and myth's appropriation of the sign. I understand that there is the actual meaning of an item/object/phrase/article/whatever, and then there is the meaning I associate with it, and then there is the ideological level. I'll try to explain this with an example that isn't useless to me.
Look! It's the Duke, so you know we're in for a fun time, right? Okay, so here is my take on this business with the Duke.
1. This is a picture of John Wayne, el dukerino, in front of an American flag.
2. John Wayne is an American movie star and mostly starred in war flicks and Westerns, so we associate him with guns and general badassedness. (Sign)
3. The myth in this picture, for me, is the ideology of American badassedness, of Manifest Destiny, and American Exceptionalism.
The way I understand these three is:
1 = what it is
2 = what it does
3 = to which use it is put, ideologically
If this were, say, Stephen Urkel from Family Matters in front of the American flag, it would counter the ideology of the Duke. If it were the Hoff in front of a German flag, it would do the same thing as replacing the Duke with Urkel - it would alter the meaning and the ideology that the image represents.
I think I get it.
For the two chapters, I find the fact that they're referring to each other pretty useless, since I'm just as bewildered by both of them when they're talking about Luhmann. I think the "Language" article almost explained it to me, but then I took a break from reading it because it gave me a headache and I lost the train of thought that illuminated what Luhmann was saying. I never got it back fully. After the third reading of both chapters, though, I started to get it. I think that what makes this difficult for me is that I'm used to having a synchronous conversation about concepts that I don't understand and negotiating my understanding in the moment, rather than returning hours later. Mentally, I'm like a dwarf in "The Lord of The Rings", dangerous at short distances, but not cut out for long distances. I have no attention span for the long haul, and these chapters require the long haul. I'll keep reading them to see if I can understand any more than I do now.
I do find the historical/theoretical groundings provided on the course website very helpful for overcoming some of my confusion.
The concepts I do have a hold on in these readings are Saussure's (which spellcheck keeps trying to make "Sausage", so if I miss one, it's supposed to say "Saussure"). I understand the signifier and signified, and the signification, and I get the little chart that moves to the idea of myth and myth's appropriation of the sign. I understand that there is the actual meaning of an item/object/phrase/article/whatever, and then there is the meaning I associate with it, and then there is the ideological level. I'll try to explain this with an example that isn't useless to me.
Look! It's the Duke, so you know we're in for a fun time, right? Okay, so here is my take on this business with the Duke.
1. This is a picture of John Wayne, el dukerino, in front of an American flag.
2. John Wayne is an American movie star and mostly starred in war flicks and Westerns, so we associate him with guns and general badassedness. (Sign)
3. The myth in this picture, for me, is the ideology of American badassedness, of Manifest Destiny, and American Exceptionalism.
The way I understand these three is:
1 = what it is
2 = what it does
3 = to which use it is put, ideologically
If this were, say, Stephen Urkel from Family Matters in front of the American flag, it would counter the ideology of the Duke. If it were the Hoff in front of a German flag, it would do the same thing as replacing the Duke with Urkel - it would alter the meaning and the ideology that the image represents.
I think I get it.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Reflection #4
The contextualizations have been extremely helpful to me. I don't have any additional suggestions, particularly since my biggest problem with this class so far isn't anything that's related to anything you (Anne) has done as a teacher. My biggest problem is finding time throughout the week to do all the work.
Ninging/D2L prompts have been useful, but I'm not sure the discussion thread works for me as a student. It requires me to return to a conversation hours later, which I'm not very good at. I'm best in the moment - all this focusing and refocusing and unfocusing and refocusing makes my brain hurt. I'm pretty sure I'm not living up to expectations, but I'm sure yours are fine. I do enjoy the comments and the feedback I get from you and they do make me think.
I don't think the tone of the class is not conducive, I just think the form of the class is not conducive. I'm learning just as much about myself as a learner as I am learning about media studies. One of the therapeutic techniques my old doctor used to make me do was to try to make myself aware of how I work best and then working to make the environment as distraction-free as possible. But on the interwebs, there is endless distraction ... and on classmates' blogs. If I can continue to "stray" to other people's work, I can keep myself engaged and learn something as well.
I'm pretty sure that anything that could be altered to accommodate me would do so to the detriment of my classmates and the depth we are attempting to get at in the readings. For me to operate best, I think a central location that does blogging, Ninging/D2L-ing, class calendar, etc, would be great, at least until I find a way to organize all these damn tabs. Otherwise, I think it's up to me to make my experience in this class more productive and efficient.
A & H 1
On your blog, try to summarize the understanding Adorno and Horkheimer have of how the culture industry shapes human sense of self and possibility.
I think Adorno and Horkheimer believe the culture industry both teaches and responds to the sense of self that humans have. It shapes their possibilities by defining what is desirable and what is available, and if what we desire defines who we are, then it shapes who we are as well. I don't think this is new to the culture industry, necessarily, except in shaping what we desire economically.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
Reflection #3
I think what's most important for me to hang on to after these three weeks is the slow work I'm making towards some workable definitions. I think tomorrow I'll make up a chart to see if I can describe them more accurately. The definition of image provided in this week's reading is far too broad for me to find acceptable, but I like Drucker's definition of art and I found a new appreciation for the Benjamin article.
The concept that most matters to me is actually part of the structure of this class, that of a community of learners. I need to be more active in the community. I'm struggling to keep some sort of order with the format of the forums and discussions, and I think most of it is just in my head. I like to read everyone's contributions and synthesize them before responding, and that takes a lot of time.
I am enjoying how philosophical our conversations tend to get about the terms we're struggling to define. It makes me feel less like I've got to find a way to come up with the be-all-and-end-all definition of a concept and just focusing on making some headway, rather than completing a marathon. I'm looking forward to the weeks when we read "Senses" as well as next weeks' readings.
The concept that most matters to me is actually part of the structure of this class, that of a community of learners. I need to be more active in the community. I'm struggling to keep some sort of order with the format of the forums and discussions, and I think most of it is just in my head. I like to read everyone's contributions and synthesize them before responding, and that takes a lot of time.
I am enjoying how philosophical our conversations tend to get about the terms we're struggling to define. It makes me feel less like I've got to find a way to come up with the be-all-and-end-all definition of a concept and just focusing on making some headway, rather than completing a marathon. I'm looking forward to the weeks when we read "Senses" as well as next weeks' readings.
"Art" and "Image"
"Art":
Drucker provides a very clear and concise history of artistic styles, movements, and appreciation. She claims, and I think rightly so, that "the characteristics that long distinguished fine art from ordinary objects or mass media - the use of special materials, particular kinds of imagery, and aspirations toward higher values - are no longer definitive" (3). She also says that "the emphasis on media as an aesthetic device and art as a specialized form of experience within the larger realms of mediated perception", stemming from her analysis of Janet Zweig's The Medium. In that quote, she defines both the role of media and art in experiences modified by mediation.
"Image":
Mitchell provides a brief explanation of image through history, including examples of banned images and biblical law. Later, he defines an image as "as sign or symbol of something by virtue of its sensuous resemblance to what it represents" (38-9). He claims that "the persistence of these qualities is what ensures that, no matter how calculable or measurable images become, they will maintain the uncanny, ambiguous character that has from he first made them objects of fascination and anxiety. We will never be done with asking what images mean, what effects they have on us, and what they want from us" (47). I'm a little worried by the last part of that quote, which makes images sound autonomous.
Drucker provides a very clear and concise history of artistic styles, movements, and appreciation. She claims, and I think rightly so, that "the characteristics that long distinguished fine art from ordinary objects or mass media - the use of special materials, particular kinds of imagery, and aspirations toward higher values - are no longer definitive" (3). She also says that "the emphasis on media as an aesthetic device and art as a specialized form of experience within the larger realms of mediated perception", stemming from her analysis of Janet Zweig's The Medium. In that quote, she defines both the role of media and art in experiences modified by mediation.
"Image":
Mitchell provides a brief explanation of image through history, including examples of banned images and biblical law. Later, he defines an image as "as sign or symbol of something by virtue of its sensuous resemblance to what it represents" (38-9). He claims that "the persistence of these qualities is what ensures that, no matter how calculable or measurable images become, they will maintain the uncanny, ambiguous character that has from he first made them objects of fascination and anxiety. We will never be done with asking what images mean, what effects they have on us, and what they want from us" (47). I'm a little worried by the last part of that quote, which makes images sound autonomous.
Benjamin, Art, Reproduction, Media
My understanding of the concept of media in "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction" is based on one particular sentence in the article. "The technique of reproduction" [media] "detaches the reproduced object" [message] " from the domain of tradition" [context]. In Benjamin's work, media is how something is transmitted, and with mass media, reproduced and transmitted. In retransmitting/producing a particular object/artwork/message outside of the bounds of its time and place, the new context "reactivates the object reproduced", giving it a new meaning, without the aura of the original.
Benjamin notes that it is not just the photograph, film, or sound recording that has changed the ability to reproduce artifacts, but rather the numbers of their production. He says that "In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new". Mechanical reproduction make reproduction easier and a part of industry in a way that the previous mode of reproduction could not compete.
Photography, a mechanized tool for reproduction, "freed the hand of the most important artistic functions which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens". Following photography, combining sound and multiple photographic images, Benjamin describes how "These convergent endeavors" became another media, film. Media are able, it seems, to combine to make another type of media.
Other contemporary theories of thinking about media include those who seem to be dazzled by its opportunities, who think it is some sort of supernatural spectacle to be celebrated without thought. Benjamin’s examples of them include such film theoreticians as the man who theorized that film was the new hieroglyph, the man who said it was “a dream”, and the one who thought it was like prayer. He also relies on explanations of acting and the behavior of actors when filtered through a media from Pirandello, a novelist and playwright.
I think Benjamin was arguing against those who blindly accepted and embraced the distractedness of reproduced art, who likely include those who also praise it without thought, calling it “fairylike, marvelous, supernatural”. But even more so than those dazzled by the reproductions, Benjamin is arguing against the fascists. Benjamin equates “The violation of the masses” by Fascism, which “forces [them] to their knees” to “the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values”. He says “[mankind’s] self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order. This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rending aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art”. So, by using mechanical means to reproduce ritual values, which is mankind’s destruction, in the form of entertainment and “aesthetic pleasure of the first order”, Fascism is rending politics aesthetic. Whew. Benjamin says that doing so can only result in war.
And he was right. This work, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, published in 1936, and mechanically reproduced, dates itself to the few years preceding the start of World War II, as Fascism use their propaganda machines to promote war against their neighbors.
Benjamin notes that it is not just the photograph, film, or sound recording that has changed the ability to reproduce artifacts, but rather the numbers of their production. He says that "In principle a work of art has always been reproducible. Man-made artifacts could always be imitated by men. Replicas were made by pupils in practice of their craft, by masters for diffusing their works, and, finally, by third parties in the pursuit of gain. Mechanical reproduction of a work of art, however, represents something new". Mechanical reproduction make reproduction easier and a part of industry in a way that the previous mode of reproduction could not compete.
Photography, a mechanized tool for reproduction, "freed the hand of the most important artistic functions which henceforth devolved only upon the eye looking into a lens". Following photography, combining sound and multiple photographic images, Benjamin describes how "These convergent endeavors" became another media, film. Media are able, it seems, to combine to make another type of media.
Other contemporary theories of thinking about media include those who seem to be dazzled by its opportunities, who think it is some sort of supernatural spectacle to be celebrated without thought. Benjamin’s examples of them include such film theoreticians as the man who theorized that film was the new hieroglyph, the man who said it was “a dream”, and the one who thought it was like prayer. He also relies on explanations of acting and the behavior of actors when filtered through a media from Pirandello, a novelist and playwright.
I think Benjamin was arguing against those who blindly accepted and embraced the distractedness of reproduced art, who likely include those who also praise it without thought, calling it “fairylike, marvelous, supernatural”. But even more so than those dazzled by the reproductions, Benjamin is arguing against the fascists. Benjamin equates “The violation of the masses” by Fascism, which “forces [them] to their knees” to “the violation of an apparatus which is pressed into the production of ritual values”. He says “[mankind’s] self-alienation has reached such a degree that it can experience its own destruction as an aesthetic pleasure of the first order. This is the situation of politics which Fascism is rending aesthetic. Communism responds by politicizing art”. So, by using mechanical means to reproduce ritual values, which is mankind’s destruction, in the form of entertainment and “aesthetic pleasure of the first order”, Fascism is rending politics aesthetic. Whew. Benjamin says that doing so can only result in war.
And he was right. This work, “The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction”, published in 1936, and mechanically reproduced, dates itself to the few years preceding the start of World War II, as Fascism use their propaganda machines to promote war against their neighbors.
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Reflection #2
I really liked the definition of humanity given in the Hansen and Mitchell reading. They seem to be very welcoming of all voices in a conversation, which I think gives graduate students a place to converse, unlike some of the other books I've read for other courses. I would like to think that by making "media culture" such an encompassing field that it is not just describing something, but also practicing an open attempt at honesty and acceptance of difference. Doing so opens up conversations and avoids binaries, which I dislike. I don't think I see any methods that aren't applicable to media culture.
My own interests are fairly broad. I am always interested in technology, but I'm also interested in pedagogy and the classroom, as well as how things (from culture to batteries powered by potatoes to whatever else) work.
The wiki is going less than well for me at the mo'. I struggle with paying attention at times (a shocker!) and I struggle with overstimulation, which I am afraid may be a side effect of this course. I will, however, power through. I find that I enjoy the class discussion a lot, but not in the way it works on D2L. I like that we can have asynchronous conversations, but I don't like the way they are threaded on D2L. I would take more initiative in the discussion if I had more time, but just reading all of the discussions takes hours.
I suppose I'm not encouraging participation much, but I could try to do so. The readings have helped me be analytic, as well as my conversations with my classmates both online and in person. So, since those conversations are participation, participation may be the next goal on my list of goals.
My own interests are fairly broad. I am always interested in technology, but I'm also interested in pedagogy and the classroom, as well as how things (from culture to batteries powered by potatoes to whatever else) work.
The wiki is going less than well for me at the mo'. I struggle with paying attention at times (a shocker!) and I struggle with overstimulation, which I am afraid may be a side effect of this course. I will, however, power through. I find that I enjoy the class discussion a lot, but not in the way it works on D2L. I like that we can have asynchronous conversations, but I don't like the way they are threaded on D2L. I would take more initiative in the discussion if I had more time, but just reading all of the discussions takes hours.
I suppose I'm not encouraging participation much, but I could try to do so. The readings have helped me be analytic, as well as my conversations with my classmates both online and in person. So, since those conversations are participation, participation may be the next goal on my list of goals.
(Revising) My Chart
I wish I had done several things with my chart. I think a list will work best. The list:
1. Make it bigger. Even though it wouldn't load at a bigger size, I should have linked to it.
2. Make it digitally, even though glue sticks are fun. It would have been more legible.
3. Narrate it. It would have made more sense that way. Also, I need to practice narration.
4. Look at the production of newspapers over time in a more collective way, rather than how newspapers work in individual lives.
I think that's about it. Really, by the time I did all that, it would be a different project anyway.
1. Make it bigger. Even though it wouldn't load at a bigger size, I should have linked to it.
2. Make it digitally, even though glue sticks are fun. It would have been more legible.
3. Narrate it. It would have made more sense that way. Also, I need to practice narration.
4. Look at the production of newspapers over time in a more collective way, rather than how newspapers work in individual lives.
I think that's about it. Really, by the time I did all that, it would be a different project anyway.
Second Set of Readings
In "Severed Voices", Liebes and Pinchevski focus on how content and medium can come together to facilitate the healing of a collective tragedy by offering voices to those who had been denied their own stories by unspeakable horrors. Their discussion of media focused on the content, unlike the definition offered by Hansen and Mitchell, whose definition focused on the actual media as the content. They claim that radio allowed "for a new kind of participation at a distance", based on their studies of Holocaust accounts and interviews with Israelis who were young at the time. I see parallels (to varying degrees) to the television reports following the September 11th attacks, as well as the Challenger and Columbia tragedies and the Chilean mine rescue.
Morris' theoretical article explores how culture reacts to other cultures' influences and develops an understanding of the word "culture". Like Liebes and Pinchevski, Morris focuses on the collective experience of those within a culture, rather than the individual concerns. "Ideas and cultural symbols are carried from place to place by individuals and via communications technologies," which ultimately enhances the cultures these ideas and symbols come into contact with. The most interesting claim in Morris' article, though, was that "while identities may not be destroyed by imported media, local media industries are indeed vulnerable". Echoing the complaints against many a new Walmart, this claim is based on the value of local exportation of culture via media, as well as the reception of aspects of different cultures via the same media. By valuing local as a benefit to a global exchange, this argument makes "media culture" both local and global. I see the concerns of both Pinchevski and Liebes and Morris falling into the category of "Society" in Mitchell and Hansen's book.
Mattson's review states that "we use the term media to refer both to the instruments by which we distribute messages and to the messages themselves." And, as he praises the reviewed book for appealing to both layfolk and experts alike, I say Mattson sees media studies as inclusive, like Mitchell and Hansen's attempts to include as much of the various perspectives on media studies as possible. Also, like Liebes and Pinchevski, Mattson praises work that avoids falling into simplistic binaries.
D'Souza focuses mainly on the lack of politics in a work analyzing the work of Gustave Courbet, who used his art as a commodity by "selling out" to support the development of his more exciting works. The author D'Souza criticizes claims that this was how Courbet took advantage of a newly developing media culture involving the press. And D'Souza doesn't exactly disagree. D'Souza's criticism, then, that the book ignored the political entanglements of the painter shows that D'Souza sees media culture as at least partially political.
I see myself, thankfully, working towards a definition of terms and understanding of definitional differences in all of the different uses of the word media, as well as the word culture. There's hope. Possibly because of my struggle to conceptualize terms, I have spent most of my free time during the week pondering the similarities between these articles, hoping to have some sort of lightening bolt of inspiration strike me and help me see something more concrete...
I like the idea of an inclusive media studies, one that has conversations across disciplinary boundaries. I'm just going to work through the mind-vibrating cacophony that is, so far, my understanding of media studies. That, for right now, is where I am.
Morris' theoretical article explores how culture reacts to other cultures' influences and develops an understanding of the word "culture". Like Liebes and Pinchevski, Morris focuses on the collective experience of those within a culture, rather than the individual concerns. "Ideas and cultural symbols are carried from place to place by individuals and via communications technologies," which ultimately enhances the cultures these ideas and symbols come into contact with. The most interesting claim in Morris' article, though, was that "while identities may not be destroyed by imported media, local media industries are indeed vulnerable". Echoing the complaints against many a new Walmart, this claim is based on the value of local exportation of culture via media, as well as the reception of aspects of different cultures via the same media. By valuing local as a benefit to a global exchange, this argument makes "media culture" both local and global. I see the concerns of both Pinchevski and Liebes and Morris falling into the category of "Society" in Mitchell and Hansen's book.
Mattson's review states that "we use the term media to refer both to the instruments by which we distribute messages and to the messages themselves." And, as he praises the reviewed book for appealing to both layfolk and experts alike, I say Mattson sees media studies as inclusive, like Mitchell and Hansen's attempts to include as much of the various perspectives on media studies as possible. Also, like Liebes and Pinchevski, Mattson praises work that avoids falling into simplistic binaries.
D'Souza focuses mainly on the lack of politics in a work analyzing the work of Gustave Courbet, who used his art as a commodity by "selling out" to support the development of his more exciting works. The author D'Souza criticizes claims that this was how Courbet took advantage of a newly developing media culture involving the press. And D'Souza doesn't exactly disagree. D'Souza's criticism, then, that the book ignored the political entanglements of the painter shows that D'Souza sees media culture as at least partially political.
I see myself, thankfully, working towards a definition of terms and understanding of definitional differences in all of the different uses of the word media, as well as the word culture. There's hope. Possibly because of my struggle to conceptualize terms, I have spent most of my free time during the week pondering the similarities between these articles, hoping to have some sort of lightening bolt of inspiration strike me and help me see something more concrete...
I like the idea of an inclusive media studies, one that has conversations across disciplinary boundaries. I'm just going to work through the mind-vibrating cacophony that is, so far, my understanding of media studies. That, for right now, is where I am.
Responding to Mitchell and Hansen's Introduction
Media studies, in Mitchell and Hansen's "Introduction", is a messy combination of multidisciplinary forays into the topic of media and mediation and a "failure to communicate across borders that divide the technophiles, the aesthetes, and the sociopolitical theorists" (xvi). In response to what they see as an all-encompassing field with seemingly ironic communication issues, they chose to include multiple perspectives in each of their three topics - aesthetics, technology, and society. Their hope for "doing media studies" is to be critical and open to the variety of information created by the multidisciplinary field of media studies.
Their definition of media is an "intervening substance", which makes media "content, not just a vehicle or channel". Their description of media on page ix, which includes the statement that "Shakespeare had no concept of media, but his plays may be profitably studied as specific syntheses of varied technical, architectural,, and literary practices", seems to describe media as a combination of form, genre, conventions, and physical manifestation.
Not to be overly dramatic, but I really felt that the stakes of media studies for Hansen and Mitchell were described when discussion Grusin, Kittler, and Bolter. Their statement, "what is lost in the process is a broader sense of the existential stakes, of how these operations of mediation tie in with the form of life that is the human", seems really bold. To say that it's an existential question that will help us understand what it is to be human is a powerful statement.
What matters for them in doing media studies? What do they hope we will attend to in doing media studies?
Their definition of media is an "intervening substance", which makes media "content, not just a vehicle or channel". Their description of media on page ix, which includes the statement that "Shakespeare had no concept of media, but his plays may be profitably studied as specific syntheses of varied technical, architectural,, and literary practices", seems to describe media as a combination of form, genre, conventions, and physical manifestation.
Not to be overly dramatic, but I really felt that the stakes of media studies for Hansen and Mitchell were described when discussion Grusin, Kittler, and Bolter. Their statement, "what is lost in the process is a broader sense of the existential stakes, of how these operations of mediation tie in with the form of life that is the human", seems really bold. To say that it's an existential question that will help us understand what it is to be human is a powerful statement.
What matters for them in doing media studies? What do they hope we will attend to in doing media studies?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)