In the chapter on "An Alphabet That Thinks," Richard Lanham presents several thoughtful concerns about the emerging trend of electronic texts. The thesis seems to be concerned with how electronic texts, especially e-books are fast replacing the nostalgia of printed codex. The critique for most part holds that electronic culture is irreverently changing the textual face of the reading experience. Lanham steers away from this popular critique and proposes that it is time that we looked at how textual experience can be dynamically adjusted through an evolved set of alphabets--alphabets that think.
In his conception, the alphabets are personified, which can think and therefore, can exist as a rhetorical reality. To adapt to this new possibility, Lanham believes that one should conceive e-texts as having a "polyvalent" form including text, sound, and graphics. Previously the text was flat and linear bounded within a tw0-dimensional world. But the polyvalent identity of this neo-text capacitates spaces that can be utilized for dynamic embeds such as an image clip or a sound bite; in the process it renders reading more real and more rhetorical.
Although Lanham's definition of neo-text is a practical possibility, his philosophy behind creation of such text is somewhat contentious. He proposes that the C-B-S (clarity, brevity, sincerity)model of composing text has to give way to a more self-conscious production of texts that privileges a sort of rhetoric of intent rather than a representation of fact. This is somewhat disturbing. GIven the understanding that electronic communication affords customized package of information based on the purpose and context, but it still obviates the need to be transparent not only rhetorically but also directly. As such the C-B-S theory of communication holds good even when one when intends to package audience and context specific information.
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Friday, May 16, 2008
Visual Pervasiveness
Postmodern public life is a collage of visual realities that constantly invades and adjusts our private lives. Nicholas Mirzoeff in his discussion on visual culture contends that to a large extent this might be the case since much of the postmodern uncertainty has been the result of a paradigm change from a predominantly textual culture to a visual culture. Wheter his thesis is true or false that is debatabel, but nonetheless he makes a very interesting supposition about dealing with visualization. Mirzoeff suggests that living in a visual culture does not mean understanding the meaning of that culture (3). In a sense the assumption purports that visual culture by itself is not experiential and it needs more than experience to understand it. Given the vast canvass with which Mirzoeff is working with this might a possiblity since he tends to define visual technology as anything that can be looked at and "enhance natural vision" (3). The second part of his definition looks at visualization not in terms of "scene" but rather in terms of "agency"-- a conduit enabling sight. From this perspective, I believe that he is right in saying that we need to understand visualization first in order to experience it. We have to know the chanell, the "fluff," in order to experience the stuff i.e. the object of vision. This definition also extends the realm of visual culture to the domain of CMC where the latter acts as the agency.
On the other hand , Mirzoeff offers another view of "spectatorship"or visualization by shifting from the technical aspect to a more philosophical aspect, which he calls the "sublime" (9). Visualization not only fragments reality as mentioned in the earlier section of his discussion, but rather it weaves a composite artistry of reality. The visual reality or representation transcends the physical perception to a philosophical realization. Mirzoeff believes that through visualization one can not only experience what is immediate but also what is implied.
In the postmodern age where the interaction with the print culture is waning, the experience of sublime through visual is definitely a new way of experiencing the old.
On the other hand , Mirzoeff offers another view of "spectatorship"or visualization by shifting from the technical aspect to a more philosophical aspect, which he calls the "sublime" (9). Visualization not only fragments reality as mentioned in the earlier section of his discussion, but rather it weaves a composite artistry of reality. The visual reality or representation transcends the physical perception to a philosophical realization. Mirzoeff believes that through visualization one can not only experience what is immediate but also what is implied.
In the postmodern age where the interaction with the print culture is waning, the experience of sublime through visual is definitely a new way of experiencing the old.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
What is New Media?
In the present age and time, we hear about expressions like "connected world," "web society," "cyber community," and so on. According to van Dijk these buzz words stand to contradict the notions of "individualization, social fragmentation, independence and freedom" (1). However, on a closer observation it seems that individualization and integration are part of the same reality-- New Media. According to Manovich, new media can be understood as a computer revolution that "affects all stages of communication, including acquisition, manipulation, storage, and distribution"(19). This in turn influence the ways different types of media operate, such as "texts, still images, moving images, sound, and spatial constructions" (19).
Furthering Manovich's notion of new media, we can look at the structure of new media as a process of convergence of three different types of communications-- telecommunications, data communications, and mass communications. This idea of convergence further leads to another characteristic feature of new media: digitization. Manovich refers to this as "numerical representation" defined as a set of discrete data that are sampled and quantified (28).
Based on the attribute of digitization, new media offers a new level of interaction. The interaction in new media is chronoptic, to borrow Bakhtin's term, i.e. situated in time and space. It enables multilateral communication through teleconferencing, VOIP, Internet telephony, and so on. On the other hand tools like e-mail offers the possibility of communicating asynchronously; this is the time dimension of the new media.
These and many other attributes (not discussed here) of new media posit two fundemental questions: Who controls new media? And To what extent we should balance our learning in terms of technology and tools of technology? At the turn of this new millenia when new media is defined in terms of integration, interactivity, and digitization, how can we resolve these issues power and knowledge.
Furthering Manovich's notion of new media, we can look at the structure of new media as a process of convergence of three different types of communications-- telecommunications, data communications, and mass communications. This idea of convergence further leads to another characteristic feature of new media: digitization. Manovich refers to this as "numerical representation" defined as a set of discrete data that are sampled and quantified (28).
Based on the attribute of digitization, new media offers a new level of interaction. The interaction in new media is chronoptic, to borrow Bakhtin's term, i.e. situated in time and space. It enables multilateral communication through teleconferencing, VOIP, Internet telephony, and so on. On the other hand tools like e-mail offers the possibility of communicating asynchronously; this is the time dimension of the new media.
These and many other attributes (not discussed here) of new media posit two fundemental questions: Who controls new media? And To what extent we should balance our learning in terms of technology and tools of technology? At the turn of this new millenia when new media is defined in terms of integration, interactivity, and digitization, how can we resolve these issues power and knowledge.
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Fluff and Stuff
Lanham's notion of "stuff and fluff" in a way reflects Edward Bono's "lateral thinking." Lanham comments that it is important to reverse our thinking about commodities not in terms of physical components but also in terms of design of those components. It is in this sense that Lanham advocates to think outside of what is obvious or perceptible, as lateral thinking would have it.
Fluff, as we commonly understand is certainly not to be misunderstood in the context of new media. Fluff is the new media's economies of scale that determines a different kind of value than "exchange value." Lanham points out that we are "less and less constrained by material circumstance" (9), we oscillate between the foreground (the stuff) and the background (the fluff).
In the Information Age, the value of the product is therefore determined by the forces of both stuff and fluff. In other words, the value of a product is not only seen in terms of its tangibility but also in terms of its power of drawing attention. For instance, as Lanham describes, "the entire video game universe aims to make players into acute and swift economists of attention…the designer of these digital dramas is clearly an economist of attention, then, but so are the players. Parents may not need to worry so much about their children when they play video games. They may be training themselves for a new economy” (17).
In this debate of fluff and stuff Lanham proposes a new economic theory that seeks to define scarcity from the perspective of fluff rather than stuff, i.e. there is huge supply of product based on the demand but what is scarce is the ability to understand how the stuff is created. So we live in a society where we need to optimize our attention factor to really understand the value of the stuff. For Lanham, new media is the agency facilitating that optimization. It is the entry point for the new economy.
Thus, based on Lanham's assumption, I think one of the major characteristics of new media is to define not the product but its use. For instance, there may be twenty people possessing a new media artifact (fulfilling the classical economic demand-supply model) but out of these twenty only seven might actually define its use based on its conception rather than mere application. These seven people may be "attentive" enough to understand that the artifact is a function of complex of ideas that actually determine its value. Thus, our stuff is not what we "dig and grow" (as in the Agricultural Age) nor it is what we invent (as in the Industrial Age), but it is what we conceive.
Fluff, as we commonly understand is certainly not to be misunderstood in the context of new media. Fluff is the new media's economies of scale that determines a different kind of value than "exchange value." Lanham points out that we are "less and less constrained by material circumstance" (9), we oscillate between the foreground (the stuff) and the background (the fluff).
In the Information Age, the value of the product is therefore determined by the forces of both stuff and fluff. In other words, the value of a product is not only seen in terms of its tangibility but also in terms of its power of drawing attention. For instance, as Lanham describes, "the entire video game universe aims to make players into acute and swift economists of attention…the designer of these digital dramas is clearly an economist of attention, then, but so are the players. Parents may not need to worry so much about their children when they play video games. They may be training themselves for a new economy” (17).
In this debate of fluff and stuff Lanham proposes a new economic theory that seeks to define scarcity from the perspective of fluff rather than stuff, i.e. there is huge supply of product based on the demand but what is scarce is the ability to understand how the stuff is created. So we live in a society where we need to optimize our attention factor to really understand the value of the stuff. For Lanham, new media is the agency facilitating that optimization. It is the entry point for the new economy.
Thus, based on Lanham's assumption, I think one of the major characteristics of new media is to define not the product but its use. For instance, there may be twenty people possessing a new media artifact (fulfilling the classical economic demand-supply model) but out of these twenty only seven might actually define its use based on its conception rather than mere application. These seven people may be "attentive" enough to understand that the artifact is a function of complex of ideas that actually determine its value. Thus, our stuff is not what we "dig and grow" (as in the Agricultural Age) nor it is what we invent (as in the Industrial Age), but it is what we conceive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
