What media classes really want to discuss – Ch 7

Summary:

Chapter seven argues that the notion of a “medium” was never clear and technology has only added confusion on that matter. Because television is usually located in a home, we interact with a television differently than we would if we were to see a movie in a theater. There are different social rules that apply since a television is a domestic medium. We are able to do household chores and talk on the phone. We are in control of our own TV experience, like changing the channel or pausing the program. Some say that television is a medium for distracted people and encourages short attention spans. Marshall McLuhan argues that television is a “cool” medium because it requires the viewer to be actively engaged in piecing together pixels in our minds to make an image. Some believe that a medium has an “essence” and that each new medium changes the purpose of the previous ones. When photography was invented, it freed painting from being all about realistic representation and allowed it to be more about personal interpretation. However, focusing on the “essence” of each medium seems to discount the history of the medium and its path to the present.

When a medium is just an idea in the works, the inventors have no idea what the medium can accomplish. Motion pictures were supposed to be solely used for scientific purposes. To go from an idea to a true invention, there must be a societal need for that specific thing. The public must adopt the invention. There is not always a need in society for that invention, sometimes the need is created by the creation of other inventions. Sometimes large corporations create the need for certain products. It is never clear how a medium will be put to use until it is introduced into society. It becomes a negotiation between the original intention of the medium and social adoption. However, it is also clear to see that new mediums borrow from old mediums and vice versa. This is called remediaton.

John Durham Peters argues that the idea of a medium is a trap because it divides media into categories. We focus on the categories more than we focus on the content itself. At times, we become too concerned with the fantasy of what a medium is. A cellphone is still considered a common carrier, although, with the invention of smartphones, we use our phones for so much more. We should not let our fantasies of what media has been or could be, distract us from media in the present.

Outside Example:

Like it says in the reading different mediums share ideas and compete. This made me think of different competing social media platforms and how they share ideas. Originally, Snapchat was the first social media platform to be able to post stories, which are an accumulation of photos that you want to share with your friends that disappears after 24 hours. However, later instagram adopted this same idea and then facebook also jumped on the bandwagon.

Connection to reading:

I know this reading talks about different mediums like TV versus a movie, so I’m not sure if my example is irrelevant or not. Even different social media platforms borrow ideas from one another because they don’t want to seem outdated. As youtube tries to grow as a platform, it has begun creating television shows. Does this mean that youtube is still considered a website or an app? Does this mean that it is considered TV? I agree with the original argument in chapter 7 that the idea of a “medium” becomes ever so blurred. It becomes hard to classify what kind of medium youtube. Also, instagram added a live streaming feature, which also confuses the purpose of instagram. Is it to share stilled images or to broadcast live? I think the more we focus on the classification of each platform, the more we loose focus on the content and the present of media.