Jenkins, Henry. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New York University Press, 2006.
Argument
convergence - "...the flow of content across multiple media platforms, the cooperation between multiple media industries, and the migratory behavior of media audiences who will go almost anywhere in search of the kinds of entertainment experiences they want." (2)
It should NOT be understood as merely a technological process, but rather as a cultural shift of consumers being encouraged to seek out new info and connect dispersed media. It occurs within the brains of individual consumers and through their interactions with others.
The book explores how collective meaning-making in popular culture is being used for more than just fun: it is effecting the operations of religion, education, law, politics, advertising, and the military.
The black box fallacy - the belief that eventually all media will flow through one black box (or handheld device).
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label technology. Show all posts
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
McLuhan - "The Medium is the Message"
McLuhan, Marshall. “The Medium is the Message.” From Durham, Meenakshi Gigi, and Douglas Kellner. Media and Cultural Studies: Keyworks. Malden, Mass: Blackwell Publishers, 2001, 107-117.
Argument
McLuhan addresses the focus of media critics on the content of new technology (TV, radio, film) rather than the effect and nature of these new, faster mediums themselves. The medium itself effects the society in which it exists to an even greater degree than the content it carries.
McLuhan uses the light bulb as a basic example. It does not have content, but changes society anyway by creating space in the dark. Similarly, a story about a heinous murder has less an effect on society due to the specific story itself then the fact that such a story will change attitudes and perceptions in society.
Critique
While I can see why McLuhan was considered a key scholar at the time, this essay feels a bit dated. I think post-modern media scholars (such as Jason Mittel in "A Cultural Approach to Television Genre Theory") have managed to heed McLuhan's advice and consider the nature of the medium itself, while simultaneously discussing content. While he makes important points about the power of the medium itself, I find his theories and argument rather elusive and tenuous.
Argument
McLuhan addresses the focus of media critics on the content of new technology (TV, radio, film) rather than the effect and nature of these new, faster mediums themselves. The medium itself effects the society in which it exists to an even greater degree than the content it carries.
McLuhan uses the light bulb as a basic example. It does not have content, but changes society anyway by creating space in the dark. Similarly, a story about a heinous murder has less an effect on society due to the specific story itself then the fact that such a story will change attitudes and perceptions in society.
Critique
While I can see why McLuhan was considered a key scholar at the time, this essay feels a bit dated. I think post-modern media scholars (such as Jason Mittel in "A Cultural Approach to Television Genre Theory") have managed to heed McLuhan's advice and consider the nature of the medium itself, while simultaneously discussing content. While he makes important points about the power of the medium itself, I find his theories and argument rather elusive and tenuous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)