The two elements that stood out as main components in this writing were 1)
that the immediateness of our new electronic means has removed processes that
have been in place for centuries and 2) that the medium is becoming more
important than the message.
When we evaluate how the media and news have
so quickly progressed with the expansion of electronic and online tools such as
CNN's iReport, YouTube or the latest smart phones, it is easy to see how the
established news development processes of the past have been surpassed.
No longer is there time to fully investigate and report a thorough and accurate
story, because speed and being first to "print" is of utmost
value. Hence, we can see how the medium can become the message because
when content can be incorrect or altered as we consider uses of Photoshop or
misuses of hackers.
Consider this, why are Facebook profile picture
updates, tweets about Jack-in-the-box cheesecake at 2 am or video's of you
climbing a tree even at all interesting? They're not, but the medium is
the message. The content has become insignificant, while the delivery has
become mesmerizing. Mr. Mcluhan explains this well when relating to the
onset of Cubism which, "drops the illusion of perspective in favor of
instant sensory awareness of the whole...by seizing on instant total
awareness" (pg 205) Previously, people would analyze the actual
nature of a painting and how it reflected real life, but Cubism brought every
aspect of the picture into the 2D world so it could be analyzed for what it
was, not how it was accurate. When considering Facebook's draw, it
attempts to provide the similar view of all angles of people's lives while not
providing any process to guarantee that the content is even accurate to
evaluate.
--CG
I enjoyed the point you made about our minute-by-minute activities not being all that interesting, but that the online delivery of it to others is mesmerizing. I think differently; however, about the medium becoming more important that the message— I think it always was.
ReplyDeleteI thought it was interesting that McLuhan considered a medium to be an extension of ourselves. By this he means that each medium we use introduces shapes and controls the association we have with each other and the actions we take, with personal and social consequences for us.
Humans have always communicated via a medium. First, by hand motions, body language and sounds, then speech was added, followed by drawings, writing, telegraphs, radio, television, computers, the web, Internet, social media, and all the other media. All of these media have content. Each medium has messages separate from the content they carry.
According to McLuhan, the content is ineffective in shaping the form of human association, but the medium is quite effective. This means that long-ago humans formed local associations with each other regardless of the content of their hand motions, body language and sound. They had no way to form any other kind of association. When cave drawings were introduced, they could communicate with people they might never meet. Once writing began, only educated people could read what was written, so one of the messages reinforced was that there were different “classes” of people. Radio and TV provided norms of behavior against which people could judge themselves. Computers, which opened up the availability of information but still only to those who could afford them or had the necessary education, again reinforced inequality, this time via the digital divide.
So all media carry messages separate from the content they provide, and always have from our earliest days on earth.
Lee, your point is well taken, the medium becoming an extension of ourselves is very true. The interesting part about most electronic mediums is that it occurs in the absence of the sound, touch and sight of another human during communication. Granted, our communication will continue to "evolve", but straying too far away from these personal principles and focusing on the insignificant portions of our lives gives the feeling that it can actually erode our societal bonding. Just some thoughts, but surely there's more to explore! Thanks!
ReplyDelete