In class I asked you to define new media. How do Murray and Manovich define new media? How do their conceptualizations of new media change your definition of new media?
I thought that many of our short definitions of new media were accurate, but Murray and Manovich go into more detail and define new media from different perspectives. In Murray's article, he went into the dichotomy of the conceptualization of new media from the scientific and humanistic perspectives. From his piece I got a better feeling for the different views of the creation of new media post WWII. Manovich also discussed new media from those different perspectives, but his explanations were much clearer. From both pieces I got a better realization of new media as a cultural work, not just new technology that is there for our disposal. I also never thought about the evolution of new media starting from literary imagination to development of programs and how that all ties into other historical movements, like avant-garde in the 1920s. -Jenny H
Although I agreed with many of our definitions from class, I believe that Manovich's eight different definitions of new media were the most accurate. My opinion has only slightly changed as I read number six, which discussed how we are finding faster ways to complete algorithms and other processes through a computer. I had never thought about how limited our thinking about new media is because of "recurrent aesthetic strategies." Although we repeat ourselves with these strategies, we also create new and improved programs that further our society's media capabilities. The most fascinating thing I encountered was the idea that new technology and media progresses because of regression back to old thoughts and ideas. -Morgan C
Murray and Manovich both agree that new media is computer based: it is the computer technology that allows us to present more complex information in an easily accessible way. This coincides with our definitions of new media in class and, if you were to ask me what I thought new media was, how I would define the term. After reading the two pieces, I thought it was interesting to see how much more complicated the definition of new media is, and the debates that the advent of new media has sparked.
My favorite section of the reading was in Murray's piece, when he stated that new media is feared media. This is true: you always fear what you don't know. I think that maybe this is the easiest way for me to define new media-media that we do not completely understand yet, and therefore to a degree fear. An excellent example of this is artificial intelligence: haven't there been a lot of movies, books, etc. in the past few years about artificial intelligence gone wrong? (Think I Robot... which was a great movie by the way). Thinking of new media in that way narrows the definition down for me a bit.
All in all, many of Murray and Manovich's definitions of new media correspond with those I use to define the subject. It is, most definitely, a world of "explorable, expansive places" that sparks inspiration, communication, and community. It is undoubtedly the largest medium ever created, and rightfully so, as it truly helps us "understand the world and our place in it."
What caught my attention was Murray's point that, expressed by Marshall McLuhan, media is an "extension of man" or a "'second self' upon which we project consciousness." I think anyone who has played The Sims can agree with that statement. What is more, Manovich went on to discuss how new media is a reflection of past/present culture and cultural logic. This, in my mind, makes the topic twice as interesting, since I now realize it has the ability to explain our trends and way of life. -David W
I love Murray's anecdote at the end of which she says "the solution lies in building something, in making something that will better serve human need". I think this really sums up what new media is and what makes it stay long enough to become "old media". If something is created that isn't useful, it won't be used and will soon be forgotten, but things like microscopes and satellites are now "old media" because they have changed the world we live in and influenced our thinking. Later, Murray says "we cannot rewind our cognitive effort, since the digital medium is as much a pattern of thinking and perceiving as it is a pattern of making things". I thought this statement really tied up her thoughts. It made me realize that "old media" serves as the basis upon which "new media" takes shape.
For me, the title "new media" is something that I have a hard time conceptualizing. It is such an abstract idea, and it takes so much to actually frame it into a clear definition..if it is even possible at all.
It was interesting to me how Murray described the feelings of the humanists and the engineers toward the idea of new media. It was something that was both fear and embraced. Some felt that it took something away from the artistic and creative aspects of our culture, but then others openly accepted it's potential to push society to a whole new level.
However, the part that caught my attention the most was Manovich's fifth and sixth propositions. In Proposition #5, new media is described through "aesthetic techniques and ideological tropes" such better democracy, access to the real, erosion of moral values, and destruction of the relationship between humans and the world. The new media of the past is no longer new, and the new media of today will be old before we know it. To me, this was something that I could actually wrap my head around. Proposition #6 was also interesting in it's description of new media. It was amazing to think that there really isn't anything new that hasn't been done before. What is new is the speed in which a specific task can me completed. What used to be done by hand in a matter of hours or days or years can be finished in seconds by a computer. In my opinion, the quote "there is nothing new under the sun" has great meaning in the definition of new media.
They both seem to agree that new media is restricted to computer-based communication, though Manovich seems focused at many points during his essay on the fusion of art and technology, and the utilization of technology for art. Although a loose interpretation of "art" is assumed, this terminology seems overly confusing and distracting. I feel that this terminology should be avoided as we define new media, because of the connotations that it brings with it, especially when so many other words work so much better. I liked Manovich's interesting look on new media as being a faster version of things already being done. This is a poor definition of New Media, but a great description of it.
While Murray and Manovich's definitions of new media focus heavily on technology (i.e. computers) and its role in new media, they go about their arguments quite differently.
Manovich argued that new media and technology and art are not one in the same. Rather, new media is some intersection between technology and art. Neither art nor technology have changed a great deal in their transformation into new media, and so Manovich's fourth proposal of "new media as the mix between existing cultural conventions and the conventions of software."
New media is not necessarily something that would be alien to someone who has never been exposed to it. Rather, the real difference between new and old media is the platform on which the media is created and presented. Many forms of new media, e.g. video games and the Internet, are the offspring of traditional art and advancing technology. Though new media may excel in areas where its ancestors did not, it is not going to replace them entirely -- not yet.
My personal feelings about new media remain relatively unchanged. New media is the result of humans merging old media with new technology.
From both Murry and Manovich’s articles it became apparent that new media is an ever evolving term that encapsulates any recent and endearing form of “human expression”. Both Murry and Manovich did us the courtesy of summarizing the history of new media from cultural and business perspectives. Manovich does an extensive job of examining new media from a multitude of angles yet in each theory the idea of taking from the past and melding it with the present seems to arise. The idea of variability also goes along with this theme, meaning that a single form of new media must exist in countless other forms. Manovich’s idea about this is the one I found the most interesting and true. I believe it is completely irrational to give the title of new media to only certain aspects of culture simply because it would take far too long to identify each of these individually. My definition of new media instead is a concept that can show variability in its physical capacity as well as complexity and sophistication in its programming that is relative to the time period. This definition I believe encompasses a majority of the values of new media.
Manovich condenses the term "New Media" into a very narrow scope of possibilities, amuch more narrow scope than guidelines that were set in class. Not only are the many technological commodities and forms of information that we have today excluded but many specific aspects of the computer are as well. Meanwhile, Murray describes the place this new medium has in our world and the effects it has on our lives. On a personal level, I can now see why Murray and Manovich choose to center their efforts on this single medium that is the computer instead of the many media we have had in the past. Although televisions, magazines, and radios may have been "new" in one point in our history, none of them have come close to possessing the enormous capabilities and potentials that the computer has. Besides the fact that computers speed up data processing and in turn, our lives, while providing endless amusement and new methods of approaching issues, computers have the capability to influence the moral values and aesthetic views of the masses, spreading its influence much deeper into the core of society than what appears on the most basic level of observing. Although the computer may outwardly seem to only influence the way in which art is produced, it influences all aspects of art down to what modern art should look like and the ideals it should express.
Murray's description of how media --whether for better or for worse--uses "all our myriad of talents to expand...our expression to the full measure of our humanity" really had me consider the ramifications that stem from unifying more "romantic," antiquated forms of media (Personally, these would be newspaper, books, paintings, etc. that have been in existence for a long time, but that definition certainly subjective) with more systematic media (computers, the internet, and the like). This sort of fusion really does seem to be an attempt in some instances to shed light upon an idea or concept that an individual or a group of individuals has influenced by a social phenomena or a previous form of media. This may be a hasty connection, but a friend of mine posted the following link on Facebook a few weeks ago (“Buffy vs Edward”--it is the first one listed), and I thought it illustrated well how “new media,” whether it be a form of art, a technological development, or a new way in which to make contact with other people, stems from older types of media--in this case film and television. The man who makes these calls these remixes, and aims to tell “alternative political, social and cultural narratives” with them--feel free to peruse his other works--the ones I have seen are rather thought-provoking.
One thing that I found true across the different perceptions of New Media and how to define it was that it is ever changing. The fact that our text book, “The New Media Reader” was created was a landmark in the world of new media due to the fact that it is hard to keep up with a history that is considered “history” at the drop of a hat. New technology is constantly being born and is difficult to keep up with. From both Murray and Manovich, they add emphasis to the fact that it is humans behind the new media, not just the technology. Human hunger for the new and improved is never satisfied. Murray refers mainly to the technology that has surfaced since WWII as new media. I found Manovich’s 5th proposition stating “New media as the aesthetics that accompanies the early stage of every new modern media and communication technology” to be the best. The proposition mainly states that at one point in time, all senses of media were new.
When people hear the word new media, most people instantly recognize and comprehend what it is. However, when beginning to describe as well as define it, it can be quite complex and difficult and perhaps impossible.
Murray and Manovich both give their opinions on what the true definition of new media is throughout the article. Murray states that new media is "a means to augment our powers of perception and communication," and also states that humans are "the gods of our own machines." Murray continues to discuss about the thrilling as well as threatening aspect of new media.
Manovich lists eight different propositions about what he believes new media is. In one proposition, he states that new media is "the cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition." Throughout these eight propositions, Manovish gives several thoughtful and concrete definitions, however there are some limitations to these definitions.
After reading these articles, i believe that new media can be both developing technology as well as a way of using existing media and creating a more efficient and superior technology. -Allison R.
I really like the way Vanessa, David, and others are citing specific moments in the text to illustrate their positions. You all are doing a very thoughtful job of approaching the topic. Feel free to build upon other people's ideas (e.g. "I agree with Betty in this way; however, I differ from her in terms of x").
After reading the two articles about new media the definition that stood out the most after I finished reading was "new media are the cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition," stated by Manovich. Also "Other cultural objects which use computing for production and storage but not for final distribution... are not new media." At first when we talked about this in class I considered cell phones and the television new media but after reading this and the definition Menovich gave, it makes sense that the newest media would encompass the computer and the internet which are some of the most recent forms of communication. It is an ever increasing list that will continue to grow as new technology emerges and is added to the list. The list he included was all technology used by the computer and read by the computer as well.
My favorite line from the whole thing is "thus in my view this book is not just an anthology of new media but also the first example of a radically new history of modern culture--a view from the future when more people will recognize that the true cultural innovators of the last decades of the twentieth century were interface designers...-rather than painters..." I feel that the author points out that we have not been giving credit to people who developed new things on the internet when this is what our legacy will be in a sense. In order to learn about our culture now, it is imperative to look at how big of a part the internet and the computer have played in our society.
It's obvious that both Murray and Manovich both have somewhat differing opinions on the overall concept of new media. But, for me, it seems that anyone can have their own definition of what new media is. For example, in class we acknowledged that new media has an ever changing definition based on advances in technology. But does the definition change when you change geographical communities? In third world countries, new media is different than what ours is. They don't have the advances in technology that we do. For me, the quote in the book from Marshall McLuhan seems to sum up our current definition of "new media" the best. He describes it as "extensions of man", which are evident in the development of social networking sites and Twitter updates (now which are moving into an even more mobile world on our cell “phones”) Third world countries lack mainstream use of recent technology, which changes their concept of the term "new media". In a geographically broad overview, new media, for the majority of people, is the same. However when you dive down to different, more specific, regions of the world, you will find various thoughts on the term. This parallels the opinions set forth by Manovich and Murray. Both, in a broad overview, see new media in terms of the computer, but each have their own definitions as to what new media on it is. For our society today though, Manovich best summed it up saying, "The emergence of new media studies as a field testifies to our recognition of the key cultural role played by digital computers and computer-enabled networking in our global society."
Murray seems to think that the idea of new media began with computers. He suggests that developing new media in the form of computer programs is man's solution to make a confusing and vast world more manageable. He discusses the birth of word processing, online communities, video games, and other tools that were developed that made the computer practical for a wider audience. Throughout his essay, Murray seems to focus mostly on computers and the programs that have been developed for them.
Manovich seemed to touch on many other examples of new media than Murray did in his essay. For example, Manovich's definition of new media includes 3-D modeling, CDs, DVDs, animation, special effects, and some art. One of his most clearly stated definitions says new media "are the cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition." (page 17) He goes on to clarify that "objects which use computing for production and storage but not for final distribution...are not new media." (17)
I was surprised by two major things in the readings. I hadn't realized how controversial the development of computers in the 1960s had been. Another surprising find was that Manovich does not consider television, feature films, magazines, books and other paper-based publications (page 17) to be new media. I had always thought all of the above were types of new media, but now I understand why they don't fit Manovich's definition - they do not use computing for distribution, but rather only for their production and storage (17).
To me, new media is any form of mass communication that seeks to bring the world closer together through the common language of technology.
After reading the two excerpts, it is clear that new media is a much greater influence on the individual and society than I thought. I liked the idea that the new media can be an extension of a culture's expression. Sherry Turkle refers to this as a "second self". Online communities allow a new level of discovery through relationships with others outside of geographical barriers or the limits of time.
My orginial idea of new media was any technology that was recently released to consumers. I can now see that the definition is really about communication and expression of a culture, using advancement in efficiency. The excerpts focus on the computer, which allows individual growth, instruction on other cultures, and discovery of oneself through exploration.
Talking about new media, we will soon think about networks, digital data and communication technology. However, giving new media an accurate definition is a tough work, and Murray and Manovich have different perspectives.
In the article “Inventing the Medium”, Murray talks about the impact of new media and considers that new media is a product of humanity and culture. As he said, “we work with all our myriad talents to expand our media of expression to the full measure of our humanity.” However, Manovich believes new media is combination of arts and technology, and gives eight propositions of new media. He provides explanations to clarify and compare some words that are easily misunderstood. For example, new media is different from cyberculture in some ways: “cyberculture is focused on the social and on networking; new media is focused on the cultural and computing.” I like Manovich’s perspective toward new media, the examples in the article clearly describe new media in an interesting way.
Murray describes new media as its own entity in the digital world (3). Furthermore, Murray identifies this new media as a medium which enhances mankind by pooling together knowledge and actively linking ideas (5). She seems to be amazed with the sheer volume and facets of the digital world as the sole new form of media as she describes stories of how this new media came to be.
Manovich, on the other hand, proposes that the idea of new media is far more concise and is comprised of eight different factors, to which he claims there could be even more (16). The fourth idea makes the most sense to me; the idea that new media is the mix between existing culture and the standards of new software (18). It makes sense to me that the new media that exists today is a result of older cultural conventions that have been manipulated and transformed to meet our growing desire for higher technology.
I really had no expectations of new media when the class began. I thought of it as more of an umbrella term that included traditional medias in a revised form. After reading these two articles, my focus has been directed towards technology and the digital world. A question that provoked serious thought for me was Murray’s question of what exactly motivated us as humans to connect with a machine that was initially unintelligent and unreadable (11)? The development of technology into a monopoly of a new media was a straight and narrow path and the continuation of new media today is exciting.
The class defined new media as a form of communication that reaches a large audience. New media can also be considered "developing technology." After reading the two passages, i still believe the class description to be valid yet very broad. Murray and Manovich helped the narrow the definition down to a more precise answer. Murray believes new media is more than a concrete answer, and can be compared to a "rhizome" or a potato root system. This helps people understand the intricacies of the computer and that it is a positive thing enabling growth and progression into the future. I found it interesting that Manovich helped describe new media as being relative to location. New media in once place might be common in another, depending on interest in arts, economic situations and cultural reasons. I also find Manovich's 4th proposition to be very interesting. He compares old data as human experiences and new data as numerical data. When you combine these two you create new media. I have never thought of new media as this before. I can see truth in this statement because all the new media i am familiar with is based on taking things humans are already familiar with and enhancing them.
In "Inventing the Medium" countless times I noticed Murray describing media as a form of expression. Never have I put the two phrases together, but I do fully agree. "The world has become more difficult to understand, so we need better ways of thinking about it, more powerful methods of mastering complexity" (pg 4). With the changing of emotions and thought, comes the changing of media. With progress intellectually the need for new modes of expression arises. It is stated on page 7 how McLuhan called media "extensions of man." As society changes the presence of new media is not only essential but inevitable. I love the quote, "we are drawn to this medium because we need it to understand the world and our place in it" page 11. Manovich states that new media is focused on the cultural and computing. I agree that new media is simple new ways to represent reality and new ways to see the world. I also enjoyed the fact that new media is not all new. We create and form new media through the research and findings done prior. Yes, much is added, but the foundation is the same. New media is just "new ways of accessing and manipulating information." I think the readings have deepened my knowledge of new media and helped me to have a more educated stance on what new media really is. -Danica K.
I think Nathan C, Heather, and Manovich bring up an interesting point in noting that new media is relative to location. I think we tend to assume new media is whatever's considered "new" in our region of the world (e.g., cell phone novel popularity in Japan--I don't think they're even available in the U.S. yet! Not to mention, third-world countries still without things we consider "old" media).
I agree with Andrew Y in finding Murray's description of humanists and engineers interesting, especially engineers' vision of a meta-book.
I think my favorite thought on new media from the reading is, "But the term 'new media' is a sign of our current confusion about where these efforts are leading and our breathlessness at the pace of change, particularly in the last two decades of the 20th century." (pg. 3). I agree, I think we are confused about where it is all leading. I also like the comparison of being overwhelmed by the rate of changes to "breathlessness."
To branch off that thought, I think the recent increase in the rate new media is developing is something to take note of. When televisions came out, elderly people might not have been welcome to the idea at first but in general, it did not take long for televisions to wind up in most households. However, I think new media has been developing so fast that it doesn't have the chance to become diffused before something new is released.
Both Murray and Manovich focused their attention on the computer as new media. I think the definitions we covered in class were largely consistent with how Murray and Manovich define new media, although both authors went into significantly more detail.
It is obviosly a difficult topic to define as it is ever changing. Technologies are constantly changing and I believe this is an attempt to satisfy humanity's insatiable wants. People are always looking for something better, faster, more convenient, etc. However, if they were ever to be satisfied there would be no further need to develop any technologies and presently we would have none of the things we now fail to appreciate.
Murray included several passages that seemed rather important to me when thinking about new media. One of which referred to the computer as a means of fulfilling humanity's "desire to get everything in one place." (6)
Manovich, too, conveyed new media as a way of trying to satisfy an infinite yerning for improvement. He pointed out that much of what computers do could theoretically be performed by humans, but at a much slower rate. And as such, would be unacceptable in today's fast paced world. (20)
From reading these two definitions of new media, my personal definition has broadened considerably while remaining fundamentally unchanged.
After reading Murray and Manovich's explanations of the development of new media, I would agree with many other blog posts from my classmates who feel that their definition of new media was not reinvented by the supplemental information we've now been provided with, but rather enhanced and deepened.
One idea that I found to be rather thought-provoking (and somewhat comical) can be found in Murray's piece when he describes the perseverance of humans, which consequently will "...make us engage with machines for fifty years despite their core stupidity...and their propensity to crash." It just proves that new media comes from the human desire to continuously improve and think "beyond our old tools" (11). This is such a true statement in terms of the human desire to constantly make things easier, more accessible, and more user-friendly. I think that it could be said that new media has been a direct result of this inherent human desire to constantly improve on what was there before them.
One point from the readings that drastically enhanced my definition of new media was the idea that new media is different all over the world. When defining new media in class, I was only thinking of new media in terms of the United States' context, however the readings really helped me to engage in the broader context of new media. For this reason, it makes it even harder to define because it is such a subjective term.
Both of these readings, as well as the discussion in class, lead me to believe it is impossible to easily define new media because there are so many details and historical references that must be taken into consideration when describing new media. It is not obviously defined or understood, and I think this is what gives us the need for this class, in order to have the opportunity to explore a topic that is relatively new and incredibly thought-provoking.
I, too, agree with most of my classmates in that Murray and Manovich reshaped our definitions. They did not destroy our definition, they simply reformed it, embellished on it a bit, honed it, and perfected it. I really appreciated Murray's comment on Vannevar Bush's outlook on new media as opposed to the way Borges sees the new media trend. The first found it startling that the old ways of libraries and books were rapidly running out of usefulness, while the second pushed forward with the new trend, searching for ways to make his own life easier, pushing for "shortcuts". Before I read the passage I hadn't thought of the fact that the progress of media is often driven by our desire to work less. For example, today, instead of using an actual thesaurus to look up synonyms, I used dictionary.com, because it was easier. It seems almost paradoxical to me that laziness can drive progress, but there it is.
I conformed my belief to Murray's on how this progressing media comes about,and then a page or so later he changed it a little, and I like his second reason even better. It gives an additional reason, this time one that isn't paradoxical. It basically states that the world is getting more and more confusing, so we need tools that are more precise and more powerful in order to understand the ongoing struggle of the world. This passage changed my definition for why new media progresses to lean more towards the belief that progress also happens out of necessity; it isn't merely a desire to make life easier that drives us to find faster technologies and such, it is the need to know what is going on in the world, a need to understand the challanges of our day and be able to rising above these challenges. For me, now, progressing media is a way to improve life for everyone. Advances in technology improve medical care. Advances in media coverage of global issues raise awareness, allowing every day US citizens to help others in the world through donations of food, money, anything. To me new media is a way to unite the world, to bring us all together for the edification of all. I'm so excited to learn more about how new media can help us achieve this unity!
Prior to reading the texts of Murray and Manovich I thought I had a pretty clear idea of what media forms fell underneath the broad umbrella of New Media. My bits and pieces of knowledge on this subject matter have been garnered from and largely influenced by the work that father does as director of online and new media. To me, new media was and is the transmission of information through different, increasingly young, digital technologies. I however had no idea what is was that made what I considered modern technologies in communication so different that they would merit their own classification from other forms of media.
Reading the text Murray has finally made it click for me. In it he discusses Borges' and Bush's, frustration with the fundamental differences between the nature of the human mind, and the tools with which we use. The technologies available then were like tools without handles. They accomplished the task but without the greatest efficiency they were not contoured to the forms and functions of the mind. As technology, progresses, the transmission of information continually evolves to reflect more closely the complexity, interconnectedness and at times nebulosity of the human mind. This is very apparent in the way generations have attempted to explain the human mind to their children. The human minds is like many telegraph lines, a switch board, a computer.
While in class, I was somewhat confused on what the true definition of new media was. While the definitions we created as a class were helpful, they were still vague and very open to interpretation because I believe none of us were really sure what new media was. After reading the ideas of Murray and Manovich, I was able to gain a fuller understanding of what new media is, though there are still some loose ends and a bit of confusion that I hope will be cleared up throughout the semester though there is a lot that is up to interpretation because Our class ideas were similar to the thoughts of these authors, but they took these ideas to a more detailed level and provided concrete examples for us to gain a better understanding. Both authors agreed that new media has taken a turn from print and relates to computer technology. It was interesting, as jenny said, to realize that this is not just technology that made complex ideas and thoughts easily accessible, but cultural works that made them part of "media". i still find it difficult to understand what counts as new media and what is thrown out as "old" media. Technology is ever-growing and it is difficult to understand when something changes from new media to media. But as Natasha said, it is the humans behind new media, not just technology. I believe that through the detailed ideas of Murray and Manovich, I was able to better understand the broader sense of what new media is, but it is difficult to create one definition for it because it is ever changing.
During class I had only the vague impression that "new media" had something to do with technology, and that it was new within a certain time period. To be honest, I really wasn't sure about the concrete details of the definition, but I was very curious to find out what others deemed them to be. I agree with Danica when she mentions the fact that Murray seems to describe new media as new avenues of expression that human beings have formed. Just as in the past the "new media" of the time was art, print, photography, and then television, the new media of our current age is all embodied within the computer, from which arises other new technologies borrowing from its mechanisms. Some examples would be videogame consoles, music players, and other gizmos that use software technologies. While reading through Manovich's words, I admittedly found the format and statements more direct and concrete (which is a relief). On Manovich's second point about new media, I found totally agree with his distinction that new media has to do with distribution and exhibition rather than merely storage of ideas. Overall, reading through Manovich and Murray enhanced my understanding of new media by a bit (although it's not crystal clear to me yet). I would be interested to learn more about this subject.
Both readings relied heavily on computers as a new form of media, which is true as it is still a young media form. However, I feel that Manovich's piece is easier to extend to other media as anything that causes a paradigm shift and challenges the status quo of how things are done. This is opposed to Murray's piece which talks exclusively about technology and its recent rise in popularity. However, I feel both of these pieces show their age because they were written before many of the recent web revolutions really took hold. The idea of Web 2.0 and mass collaboration, such as Wikipedia, would provide perfect examples of how computers are able to introduce a new type of media different than anything before it. Because of this, my view of new media really didn't change much because I feel the dated accounts of technology age the book and make it lose some of its relevancy.
In class I struggled to define "new media" clearly. What is new? Isn't all media new? Is there old media? As you can see, I was a little confused. However I gained understanding after reading the two different perspectivesof new media from Murray and Manovich.
Murray defines new media as a digital medium that emerged in the late 20th century (3). It is a computerized medium that has allowed many other formats. I think it is important to notice how Murray emphasizes new media as a cultural expression. Murray addresses that the digital medium doesn't reflect a new and developing technology but simply, "a change in how our minds are working (3)". I took a particular interest in that line.
On the other hand, Manovich's definition is much more set and stone. Manovich makes it clear that new media is, "the cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition." While reading I couldn't help but think of how the term "technology" was defined in my Economics class last semester. In Econ, we defined it as the most efficient procedure for production. With this in mind, I favored Manovich's definition of new media comapared to Murray's definition.
Although these two pieces presented me with new information, they mainly excited me to learn more about new media!
I found that all of the definitions Murray and Manovich proposed were quite accurate, but the one that stuck with me was Definition #6: New Media is used to be a faster execution of algorithms previously executed manually or through other technologies.
This definition seems to be exactly what electronic designers are trying to employ in their work. First you had the cellphone that could access the internet, then it could access TV and the internet. Then the iPhone, which could access the internet, listen to music, play games, and watch movies. Next we're going to have a phone that does all these things, and makes you coffee.
It seems nowadays our society doesn't adhere to the technophobia that Murray described; rather we seek to have as much technology packed into one package as possible. After all, we're consumerists, and why by a coffee maker and an iPod when the iCoffee does both?
Murray defines new media as a reflection of the current stage of thinking within a society. He notes that technological advancements indicate "a change in how our minds are working" (3). He later supports this idea, as previous classmates have already addressed, by generalizing the purpose of innovations as the "making [of] something new that will better serve human need" (4). Thus, Murray deduces that as the needs of humans change, evoked by changes in thought processing, new mediums are created that "will carry us gracefully to the next level of information control and systematic thought" (4).
Manovich makes his interpretation of new media very clear as he structures his definition into eight propositions. Overall, he narrows his definition of new media down to digital computer technology, but asserts that the technology must be the means "for final distribution" and not just for "production and storage" (17). Thus, for something to be classified as new media, humans must be interacting directly with the computer technology. Manovich also claims that new media is simply the extension of old media and is constantly building upon already existing technology (19). Finally, he notes that the culture of a society directly impacts the advancement of new media, and likewise, new media evokes many cultural consequences.
My definition of new media has changed minimally since my exposure to the ideas of Murray and Manovich. I already perceived new media as mainly computer technology that is an extension of old media and has cultural implications. Quite obvious to me, yet no less important, is Murray's idea that advancements in new media spur directly from human need; otherwise there would be no drive for their development in the first place. Murray sums up new media most fittingly by suggesting that societies "will be the makers of the labyrinth" and that new media is the building block that we're using to construct the passage (11).
Like Lena, when I came to class my concept of "new media" was far from defined. In my opinion, new media is created whenever an object is altered from it's original state, but each our our class discussions is slowly altering my views. Murray and Manovich's perspectives also helped to shine some light on this somewhat convoluted topic. After reading Murray's piece, I understood her view of new media to more or less encompass the computer and man's relationship with it. She defined new media as an ever changing representation of how our mind's are working at a point in time, and also described the medium as "an extension of man"(7). In essence, Murray was of the mindset that human's were the ones who dictated what media would be created and when. This media would be practical and useful in society at said point in time, and would "better serve human need"(4). She also mentioned a "dawning sense of globalism"(3), which addresses the idea that with the internet (and various other technological advances) we can communicate to any point of the world with the push of a button. Manovich defined his views of new media in a different fashion. He saw 8 propositions of new media. Like Josten, I found number 6 to be the most interesting. Each recent technological advance attempts to make life even "easier" than its predecessor. To me, some of them seem a waste of time. For instance, my Uncle recently purchased a gadget from Apple that allows him to access YouTube via his television. However, he also bought a new computer because it has superior video capabilities. It seems silly that people are now buying phones to access the internet and listen to music, or buying televisions so that they can search for random videos on YouTube. Like Josten stated in his comment, it seems that we are obsessed with any technological advance that we can get our hands on. We aren't satisfied with the gadgets of our time and are constantly searching for something smaller, faster, and more capable. The two authors greatly changed my perception of new media. I came into this class thinking that new media dealt only with technology, and I ignored other mediums such as photography or still-art. I also didn't stop to think about the relationship between man and technology and their evolution together. Overall, my definition of new media is still a bit hazy, but I'm looking forward to learning more about it!
I thought that many of our short definitions of new media were accurate, but Murray and Manovich go into more detail and define new media from different perspectives. In Murray's article, he went into the dichotomy of the conceptualization of new media from the scientific and humanistic perspectives. From his piece I got a better feeling for the different views of the creation of new media post WWII. Manovich also discussed new media from those different perspectives, but his explanations were much clearer. From both pieces I got a better realization of new media as a cultural work, not just new technology that is there for our disposal. I also never thought about the evolution of new media starting from literary imagination to development of programs and how that all ties into other historical movements, like avant-garde in the 1920s.
ReplyDelete-Jenny H
Although I agreed with many of our definitions from class, I believe that Manovich's eight different definitions of new media were the most accurate. My opinion has only slightly changed as I read number six, which discussed how we are finding faster ways to complete algorithms and other processes through a computer. I had never thought about how limited our thinking about new media is because of "recurrent aesthetic strategies." Although we repeat ourselves with these strategies, we also create new and improved programs that further our society's media capabilities. The most fascinating thing I encountered was the idea that new technology and media progresses because of regression back to old thoughts and ideas.
ReplyDelete-Morgan C
Murray and Manovich both agree that new media is computer based: it is the computer technology that allows us to present more complex information in an easily accessible way. This coincides with our definitions of new media in class and, if you were to ask me what I thought new media was, how I would define the term. After reading the two pieces, I thought it was interesting to see how much more complicated the definition of new media is, and the debates that the advent of new media has sparked.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite section of the reading was in Murray's piece, when he stated that new media is feared media. This is true: you always fear what you don't know. I think that maybe this is the easiest way for me to define new media-media that we do not completely understand yet, and therefore to a degree fear. An excellent example of this is artificial intelligence: haven't there been a lot of movies, books, etc. in the past few years about artificial intelligence gone wrong? (Think I Robot... which was a great movie by the way). Thinking of new media in that way narrows the definition down for me a bit.
~Rebecca A.
All in all, many of Murray and Manovich's definitions of new media correspond with those I use to define the subject. It is, most definitely, a world of "explorable, expansive places" that sparks inspiration, communication, and community. It is undoubtedly the largest medium ever created, and rightfully so, as it truly helps us "understand the world and our place in it."
ReplyDeleteWhat caught my attention was Murray's point that, expressed by Marshall McLuhan, media is an "extension of man" or a "'second self' upon which we project consciousness." I think anyone who has played The Sims can agree with that statement. What is more, Manovich went on to discuss how new media is a reflection of past/present culture and cultural logic. This, in my mind, makes the topic twice as interesting, since I now realize it has the ability to explain our trends and way of life.
-David W
I love Murray's anecdote at the end of which she says "the solution lies in building something, in making something that will better serve human need". I think this really sums up what new media is and what makes it stay long enough to become "old media". If something is created that isn't useful, it won't be used and will soon be forgotten, but things like microscopes and satellites are now "old media" because they have changed the world we live in and influenced our thinking. Later, Murray says "we cannot rewind our cognitive effort, since the digital medium is as much a pattern of thinking and perceiving as it is a pattern of making things". I thought this statement really tied up her thoughts. It made me realize that "old media" serves as the basis upon which "new media" takes shape.
ReplyDeleteFor me, the title "new media" is something that I have a hard time conceptualizing. It is such an abstract idea, and it takes so much to actually frame it into a clear definition..if it is even possible at all.
ReplyDeleteIt was interesting to me how Murray described the feelings of the humanists and the engineers toward the idea of new media. It was something that was both fear and embraced. Some felt that it took something away from the artistic and creative aspects of our culture, but then others openly accepted it's potential to push society to a whole new level.
However, the part that caught my attention the most was Manovich's fifth and sixth propositions. In Proposition #5, new media is described through "aesthetic techniques and ideological tropes" such better democracy, access to the real, erosion of moral values, and destruction of the relationship between humans and the world. The new media of the past is no longer new, and the new media of today will be old before we know it. To me, this was something that I could actually wrap my head around. Proposition #6 was also interesting in it's description of new media. It was amazing to think that there really isn't anything new that hasn't been done before. What is new is the speed in which a specific task can me completed. What used to be done by hand in a matter of hours or days or years can be finished in seconds by a computer. In my opinion, the quote "there is nothing new under the sun" has great meaning in the definition of new media.
They both seem to agree that new media is restricted to computer-based communication, though Manovich seems focused at many points during his essay on the fusion of art and technology, and the utilization of technology for art. Although a loose interpretation of "art" is assumed, this terminology seems overly confusing and distracting. I feel that this terminology should be avoided as we define new media, because of the connotations that it brings with it, especially when so many other words work so much better.
ReplyDeleteI liked Manovich's interesting look on new media as being a faster version of things already being done. This is a poor definition of New Media, but a great description of it.
While Murray and Manovich's definitions of new media focus heavily on technology (i.e. computers) and its role in new media, they go about their arguments quite differently.
ReplyDeleteManovich argued that new media and technology and art are not one in the same. Rather, new media is some intersection between technology and art. Neither art nor technology have changed a great deal in their transformation into new media, and so Manovich's fourth proposal of "new media as the mix between existing cultural conventions and the conventions of software."
New media is not necessarily something that would be alien to someone who has never been exposed to it. Rather, the real difference between new and old media is the platform on which the media is created and presented. Many forms of new media, e.g. video games and the Internet, are the offspring of traditional art and advancing technology. Though new media may excel in areas where its ancestors did not, it is not going to replace them entirely -- not yet.
My personal feelings about new media remain relatively unchanged. New media is the result of humans merging old media with new technology.
From both Murry and Manovich’s articles it became apparent that new media is an ever evolving term that encapsulates any recent and endearing form of “human expression”. Both Murry and Manovich did us the courtesy of summarizing the history of new media from cultural and business perspectives. Manovich does an extensive job of examining new media from a multitude of angles yet in each theory the idea of taking from the past and melding it with the present seems to arise. The idea of variability also goes along with this theme, meaning that a single form of new media must exist in countless other forms. Manovich’s idea about this is the one I found the most interesting and true. I believe it is completely irrational to give the title of new media to only certain aspects of culture simply because it would take far too long to identify each of these individually. My definition of new media instead is a concept that can show variability in its physical capacity as well as complexity and sophistication in its programming that is relative to the time period. This definition I believe encompasses a majority of the values of new media.
ReplyDeleteManovich condenses the term "New Media" into a very narrow scope of possibilities, amuch more narrow scope than guidelines that were set in class. Not only are the many technological commodities and forms of information that we have today excluded but many specific aspects of the computer are as well. Meanwhile, Murray describes the place this new medium has in our world and the effects it has on our lives. On a personal level, I can now see why Murray and Manovich choose to center their efforts on this single medium that is the computer instead of the many media we have had in the past. Although televisions, magazines, and radios may have been "new" in one point in our history, none of them have come close to possessing the enormous capabilities and potentials that the computer has. Besides the fact that computers speed up data processing and in turn, our lives, while providing endless amusement and new methods of approaching issues, computers have the capability to influence the moral values and aesthetic views of the masses, spreading its influence much deeper into the core of society than what appears on the most basic level of observing. Although the computer may outwardly seem to only influence the way in which art is produced, it influences all aspects of art down to what modern art should look like and the ideals it should express.
ReplyDeleteMurray's description of how media --whether for better or for worse--uses "all our myriad of talents to expand...our expression to the full measure of our humanity" really had me consider the ramifications that stem from unifying more "romantic," antiquated forms of media (Personally, these would be newspaper, books, paintings, etc. that have been in existence for a long time, but that definition certainly subjective) with more systematic media (computers, the internet, and the like). This sort of fusion really does seem to be an attempt in some instances to shed light upon an idea or concept that an individual or a group of individuals has influenced by a social phenomena or a previous form of media. This may be a hasty connection, but a friend of mine posted the following link on Facebook a few weeks ago (“Buffy vs Edward”--it is the first one listed), and I thought it illustrated well how “new media,” whether it be a form of art, a technological development, or a new way in which to make contact with other people, stems from older types of media--in this case film and television. The man who makes these calls these remixes, and aims to tell “alternative political, social and cultural narratives” with them--feel free to peruse his other works--the ones I have seen are rather thought-provoking.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.rebelliouspixels.com/remixes
--Lindsey F.
One thing that I found true across the different perceptions of New Media and how to define it was that it is ever changing. The fact that our text book, “The New Media Reader” was created was a landmark in the world of new media due to the fact that it is hard to keep up with a history that is considered “history” at the drop of a hat. New technology is constantly being born and is difficult to keep up with. From both Murray and Manovich, they add emphasis to the fact that it is humans behind the new media, not just the technology. Human hunger for the new and improved is never satisfied. Murray refers mainly to the technology that has surfaced since WWII as new media. I found Manovich’s 5th proposition stating “New media as the aesthetics that accompanies the early stage of every new modern media and communication technology” to be the best. The proposition mainly states that at one point in time, all senses of media were new.
ReplyDeleteWhen people hear the word new media, most people instantly recognize and comprehend what it is. However, when beginning to describe as well as define it, it can be quite complex and difficult and perhaps impossible.
ReplyDeleteMurray and Manovich both give their opinions on what the true definition of new media is throughout the article. Murray states that new media is "a means to augment our powers of perception and communication," and also states that humans are "the gods of our own machines." Murray continues to discuss about the thrilling as well as threatening aspect of new media.
Manovich lists eight different propositions about what he believes new media is. In one proposition, he states that new media is "the cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition." Throughout these eight propositions, Manovish gives several thoughtful and concrete definitions, however there are some limitations to these definitions.
After reading these articles, i believe that new media can be both developing technology as well as a way of using existing media and creating a more efficient and superior technology.
-Allison R.
I really like the way Vanessa, David, and others are citing specific moments in the text to illustrate their positions. You all are doing a very thoughtful job of approaching the topic. Feel free to build upon other people's ideas (e.g. "I agree with Betty in this way; however, I differ from her in terms of x").
ReplyDeleteLindsey, let's take a look at that clip in class!
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the two articles about new media the definition that stood out the most after I finished reading was "new media are the cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition," stated by Manovich. Also "Other cultural objects which use computing for production and storage but not for final distribution... are not new media." At first when we talked about this in class I considered cell phones and the television new media but after reading this and the definition Menovich gave, it makes sense that the newest media would encompass the computer and the internet which are some of the most recent forms of communication. It is an ever increasing list that will continue to grow as new technology emerges and is added to the list. The list he included was all technology used by the computer and read by the computer as well.
ReplyDeleteMy favorite line from the whole thing is "thus in my view this book is not just an anthology of new media but also the first example of a radically new history of modern culture--a view from the future when more people will recognize that the true cultural innovators of the last decades of the twentieth century were interface designers...-rather than painters..." I feel that the author points out that we have not been giving credit to people who developed new things on the internet when this is what our legacy will be in a sense. In order to learn about our culture now, it is imperative to look at how big of a part the internet and the computer have played in our society.
Hailey R
It's obvious that both Murray and Manovich both have somewhat differing opinions on the overall concept of new media. But, for me, it seems that anyone can have their own definition of what new media is. For example, in class we acknowledged that new media has an ever changing definition based on advances in technology. But does the definition change when you change geographical communities? In third world countries, new media is different than what ours is. They don't have the advances in technology that we do. For me, the quote in the book from Marshall McLuhan seems to sum up our current definition of "new media" the best. He describes it as "extensions of man", which are evident in the development of social networking sites and Twitter updates (now which are moving into an even more mobile world on our cell “phones”) Third world countries lack mainstream use of recent technology, which changes their concept of the term "new media". In a geographically broad overview, new media, for the majority of people, is the same. However when you dive down to different, more specific, regions of the world, you will find various thoughts on the term. This parallels the opinions set forth by Manovich and Murray. Both, in a broad overview, see new media in terms of the computer, but each have their own definitions as to what new media on it is. For our society today though, Manovich best summed it up saying, "The emergence of new media studies as a field testifies to our recognition of the key cultural role played by digital computers and computer-enabled networking in our global society."
ReplyDelete-Nathan C
Murray seems to think that the idea of new media began with computers. He suggests that developing new media in the form of computer programs is man's solution to make a confusing and vast world more manageable. He discusses the birth of word processing, online communities, video games, and other tools that were developed that made the computer practical for a wider audience. Throughout his essay, Murray seems to focus mostly on computers and the programs that have been developed for them.
ReplyDeleteManovich seemed to touch on many other examples of new media than Murray did in his essay. For example, Manovich's definition of new media includes 3-D modeling, CDs, DVDs, animation, special effects, and some art. One of his most clearly stated definitions says new media "are the cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition." (page 17) He goes on to clarify that "objects which use computing for production and storage but not for final distribution...are not new media." (17)
I was surprised by two major things in the readings. I hadn't realized how controversial the development of computers in the 1960s had been. Another surprising find was that Manovich does not consider television, feature films, magazines, books and other paper-based publications (page 17) to be new media. I had always thought all of the above were types of new media, but now I understand why they don't fit Manovich's definition - they do not use computing for distribution, but rather only for their production and storage (17).
To me, new media is any form of mass communication that seeks to bring the world closer together through the common language of technology.
After reading the two excerpts, it is clear that new media is a much greater influence on the individual and society than I thought. I liked the idea that the new media can be an extension of a culture's expression. Sherry Turkle refers to this as a "second self". Online communities allow a new level of discovery through relationships with others outside of geographical barriers or the limits of time.
ReplyDeleteMy orginial idea of new media was any technology that was recently released to consumers. I can now see that the definition is really about communication and expression of a culture, using advancement in efficiency. The excerpts focus on the computer, which allows individual growth, instruction on other cultures, and discovery of oneself through exploration.
Talking about new media, we will soon think about networks, digital data and communication technology. However, giving new media an accurate definition is a tough work, and Murray and Manovich have different perspectives.
ReplyDeleteIn the article “Inventing the Medium”, Murray talks about the impact of new media and considers that new media is a product of humanity and culture. As he said, “we work with all our myriad talents to expand our media of expression to the full measure of our humanity.” However, Manovich believes new media is combination of arts and technology, and gives eight propositions of new media. He provides explanations to clarify and compare some words that are easily misunderstood. For example, new media is different from cyberculture in some ways: “cyberculture is focused on the social and on networking; new media is focused on the cultural and computing.” I like Manovich’s perspective toward new media, the examples in the article clearly describe new media in an interesting way.
-Duoduo D.
Murray describes new media as its own entity in the digital world (3). Furthermore, Murray identifies this new media as a medium which enhances mankind by pooling together knowledge and actively linking ideas (5). She seems to be amazed with the sheer volume and facets of the digital world as the sole new form of media as she describes stories of how this new media came to be.
ReplyDeleteManovich, on the other hand, proposes that the idea of new media is far more concise and is comprised of eight different factors, to which he claims there could be even more (16). The fourth idea makes the most sense to me; the idea that new media is the mix between existing culture and the standards of new software (18). It makes sense to me that the new media that exists today is a result of older cultural conventions that have been manipulated and transformed to meet our growing desire for higher technology.
I really had no expectations of new media when the class began. I thought of it as more of an umbrella term that included traditional medias in a revised form. After reading these two articles, my focus has been directed towards technology and the digital world. A question that provoked serious thought for me was Murray’s question of what exactly motivated us as humans to connect with a machine that was initially unintelligent and unreadable (11)? The development of technology into a monopoly of a new media was a straight and narrow path and the continuation of new media today is exciting.
The class defined new media as a form of communication that reaches a large audience. New media can also be considered "developing technology." After reading the two passages, i still believe the class description to be valid yet very broad. Murray and Manovich helped the narrow the definition down to a more precise answer. Murray believes new media is more than a concrete answer, and can be compared to a "rhizome" or a potato root system. This helps people understand the intricacies of the computer and that it is a positive thing enabling growth and progression into the future. I found it interesting that Manovich helped describe new media as being relative to location. New media in once place might be common in another, depending on interest in arts, economic situations and cultural reasons. I also find Manovich's 4th proposition to be very interesting. He compares old data as human experiences and new data as numerical data. When you combine these two you create new media. I have never thought of new media as this before. I can see truth in this statement because all the new media i am familiar with is based on taking things humans are already familiar with and enhancing them.
ReplyDeleteIn "Inventing the Medium" countless times I noticed Murray describing media as a form of expression. Never have I put the two phrases together, but I do fully agree. "The world has become more difficult to understand, so we need better ways of thinking about it, more powerful methods of mastering complexity" (pg 4). With the changing of emotions and thought, comes the changing of media. With progress intellectually the need for new modes of expression arises. It is stated on page 7 how McLuhan called media "extensions of man." As society changes the presence of new media is not only essential but inevitable. I love the quote, "we are drawn to this medium because we need it to understand the world and our place in it" page 11.
ReplyDeleteManovich states that new media is focused on the cultural and computing. I agree that new media is simple new ways to represent reality and new ways to see the world. I also enjoyed the fact that new media is not all new. We create and form new media through the research and findings done prior. Yes, much is added, but the foundation is the same. New media is just "new ways of accessing and manipulating information." I think the readings have deepened my knowledge of new media and helped me to have a more educated stance on what new media really is.
-Danica K.
I think Nathan C, Heather, and Manovich bring up an interesting point in noting that new media is relative to location. I think we tend to assume new media is whatever's considered "new" in our region of the world (e.g., cell phone novel popularity in Japan--I don't think they're even available in the U.S. yet! Not to mention, third-world countries still without things we consider "old" media).
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andrew Y in finding Murray's description of humanists and engineers interesting, especially engineers' vision of a meta-book.
I think my favorite thought on new media from the reading is, "But the term 'new media' is a sign of our current confusion about where these efforts are leading and our breathlessness at the pace of change, particularly in the last two decades of the 20th century." (pg. 3). I agree, I think we are confused about where it is all leading. I also like the comparison of being overwhelmed by the rate of changes to "breathlessness."
To branch off that thought, I think the recent increase in the rate new media is developing is something to take note of. When televisions came out, elderly people might not have been welcome to the idea at first but in general, it did not take long for televisions to wind up in most households. However, I think new media has been developing so fast that it doesn't have the chance to become diffused before something new is released.
Both Murray and Manovich focused their attention on the computer as new media. I think the definitions we covered in class were largely consistent with how Murray and Manovich define new media, although both authors went into significantly more detail.
ReplyDeleteIt is obviosly a difficult topic to define as it is ever changing. Technologies are constantly changing and I believe this is an attempt to satisfy humanity's insatiable wants. People are always looking for something better, faster, more convenient, etc. However, if they were ever to be satisfied there would be no further need to develop any technologies and presently we would have none of the things we now fail to appreciate.
Murray included several passages that seemed rather important to me when thinking about new media. One of which referred to the computer as a means of fulfilling humanity's "desire to get everything in one place." (6)
Manovich, too, conveyed new media as a way of trying to satisfy an infinite yerning for improvement. He pointed out that much of what computers do could theoretically be performed by humans, but at a much slower rate. And as such, would be unacceptable in today's fast paced world. (20)
From reading these two definitions of new media, my personal definition has broadened considerably while remaining fundamentally unchanged.
-Markleigh
After reading Murray and Manovich's explanations of the development of new media, I would agree with many other blog posts from my classmates who feel that their definition of new media was not reinvented by the supplemental information we've now been provided with, but rather enhanced and deepened.
ReplyDeleteOne idea that I found to be rather thought-provoking (and somewhat comical) can be found in Murray's piece when he describes the perseverance of humans, which consequently will "...make us engage with machines for fifty years despite their core stupidity...and their propensity to crash." It just proves that new media comes from the human desire to continuously improve and think "beyond our old tools" (11). This is such a true statement in terms of the human desire to constantly make things easier, more accessible, and more user-friendly. I think that it could be said that new media has been a direct result of this inherent human desire to constantly improve on what was there before them.
One point from the readings that drastically enhanced my definition of new media was the idea that new media is different all over the world. When defining new media in class, I was only thinking of new media in terms of the United States' context, however the readings really helped me to engage in the broader context of new media. For this reason, it makes it even harder to define because it is such a subjective term.
Both of these readings, as well as the discussion in class, lead me to believe it is impossible to easily define new media because there are so many details and historical references that must be taken into consideration when describing new media. It is not obviously defined or understood, and I think this is what gives us the need for this class, in order to have the opportunity to explore a topic that is relatively new and incredibly thought-provoking.
--Gretchen C.
I, too, agree with most of my classmates in that Murray and Manovich reshaped our definitions. They did not destroy our definition, they simply reformed it, embellished on it a bit, honed it, and perfected it.
ReplyDeleteI really appreciated Murray's comment on Vannevar Bush's outlook on new media as opposed to the way Borges sees the new media trend. The first found it startling that the old ways of libraries and books were rapidly running out of usefulness, while the second pushed forward with the new trend, searching for ways to make his own life easier, pushing for "shortcuts". Before I read the passage I hadn't thought of the fact that the progress of media is often driven by our desire to work less. For example, today, instead of using an actual thesaurus to look up synonyms, I used dictionary.com, because it was easier. It seems almost paradoxical to me that laziness can drive progress, but there it is.
I conformed my belief to Murray's on how this progressing media comes about,and then a page or so later he changed it a little, and I like his second reason even better. It gives an additional reason, this time one that isn't paradoxical. It basically states that the world is getting more and more confusing, so we need tools that are more precise and more powerful in order to understand the ongoing struggle of the world. This passage changed my definition for why new media progresses to lean more towards the belief that progress also happens out of necessity; it isn't merely a desire to make life easier that drives us to find faster technologies and such, it is the need to know what is going on in the world, a need to understand the challanges of our day and be able to rising above these challenges. For me, now, progressing media is a way to improve life for everyone. Advances in technology improve medical care. Advances in media coverage of global issues raise awareness, allowing every day US citizens to help others in the world through donations of food, money, anything. To me new media is a way to unite the world, to bring us all together for the edification of all. I'm so excited to learn more about how new media can help us achieve this unity!
~Julia~
Prior to reading the texts of Murray and Manovich I thought I had a pretty clear idea of what media forms fell underneath the broad umbrella of New Media. My bits and pieces of knowledge on this subject matter have been garnered from and largely influenced by the work that father does as director of online and new media. To me, new media was and is the transmission of information through different, increasingly young, digital technologies. I however had no idea what is was that made what I considered modern technologies in communication so different that they would merit their own classification from other forms of media.
ReplyDeleteReading the text Murray has finally made it click for me. In it he discusses Borges' and Bush's, frustration with the fundamental differences between the nature of the human mind, and the tools with which we use. The technologies available then were like tools without handles. They accomplished the task but without the greatest efficiency they were not contoured to the forms and functions of the mind. As technology, progresses, the transmission of information continually evolves to reflect more closely the complexity, interconnectedness and at times nebulosity of the human mind. This is very apparent in the way generations have attempted to explain the human mind to their children. The human minds is like many telegraph lines, a switch board, a computer.
While in class, I was somewhat confused on what the true definition of new media was. While the definitions we created as a class were helpful, they were still vague and very open to interpretation because I believe none of us were really sure what new media was. After reading the ideas of Murray and Manovich, I was able to gain a fuller understanding of what new media is, though there are still some loose ends and a bit of confusion that I hope will be cleared up throughout the semester though there is a lot that is up to interpretation because
ReplyDeleteOur class ideas were similar to the thoughts of these authors, but they took these ideas to a more detailed level and provided concrete examples for us to gain a better understanding. Both authors agreed that new media has taken a turn from print and relates to computer technology. It was interesting, as jenny said, to realize that this is not just technology that made complex ideas and thoughts easily accessible, but cultural works that made them part of "media".
i still find it difficult to understand what counts as new media and what is thrown out as "old" media. Technology is ever-growing and it is difficult to understand when something changes from new media to media. But as Natasha said, it is the humans behind new media, not just technology.
I believe that through the detailed ideas of Murray and Manovich, I was able to better understand the broader sense of what new media is, but it is difficult to create one definition for it because it is ever changing.
During class I had only the vague impression that "new media" had something to do with technology, and that it was new within a certain time period. To be honest, I really wasn't sure about the concrete details of the definition, but I was very curious to find out what others deemed them to be. I agree with Danica when she mentions the fact that Murray seems to describe new media as new avenues of expression that human beings have formed. Just as in the past the "new media" of the time was art, print, photography, and then television, the new media of our current age is all embodied within the computer, from which arises other new technologies borrowing from its mechanisms. Some examples would be videogame consoles, music players, and other gizmos that use software technologies. While reading through Manovich's words, I admittedly found the format and statements more direct and concrete (which is a relief). On Manovich's second point about new media, I found totally agree with his distinction that new media has to do with distribution and exhibition rather than merely storage of ideas. Overall, reading through Manovich and Murray enhanced my understanding of new media by a bit (although it's not crystal clear to me yet). I would be interested to learn more about this subject.
ReplyDeleteBoth readings relied heavily on computers as a new form of media, which is true as it is still a young media form. However, I feel that Manovich's piece is easier to extend to other media as anything that causes a paradigm shift and challenges the status quo of how things are done. This is opposed to Murray's piece which talks exclusively about technology and its recent rise in popularity. However, I feel both of these pieces show their age because they were written before many of the recent web revolutions really took hold. The idea of Web 2.0 and mass collaboration, such as Wikipedia, would provide perfect examples of how computers are able to introduce a new type of media different than anything before it. Because of this, my view of new media really didn't change much because I feel the dated accounts of technology age the book and make it lose some of its relevancy.
ReplyDeleteIn class I struggled to define "new media" clearly. What is new? Isn't all media new? Is there old media? As you can see, I was a little confused. However I gained understanding after reading the two different perspectivesof new media from Murray and Manovich.
ReplyDeleteMurray defines new media as a digital medium that emerged in the late 20th century (3). It is a computerized medium that has allowed many other formats. I think it is important to notice how Murray emphasizes new media as a cultural expression. Murray addresses that the digital medium doesn't reflect a new and developing technology but simply, "a change in how our minds are working (3)". I took a particular interest in that line.
On the other hand, Manovich's definition is much more set and stone. Manovich makes it clear that new media is, "the cultural objects which use digital computer technology for distribution and exhibition." While reading I couldn't help but think of how the term "technology" was defined in my Economics class last semester. In Econ, we defined it as the most efficient procedure for production. With this in mind, I favored Manovich's definition of new media comapared to Murray's definition.
Although these two pieces presented me with new information, they mainly excited me to learn more about new media!
Lena
I found that all of the definitions Murray and Manovich proposed were quite accurate, but the one that stuck with me was Definition #6: New Media is used to be a faster execution of algorithms previously executed manually or through other technologies.
ReplyDeleteThis definition seems to be exactly what electronic designers are trying to employ in their work. First you had the cellphone that could access the internet, then it could access TV and the internet. Then the iPhone, which could access the internet, listen to music, play games, and watch movies. Next we're going to have a phone that does all these things, and makes you coffee.
It seems nowadays our society doesn't adhere to the technophobia that Murray described; rather we seek to have as much technology packed into one package as possible. After all, we're consumerists, and why by a coffee maker and an iPod when the iCoffee does both?
Murray defines new media as a reflection of the current stage of thinking within a society. He notes that technological advancements indicate "a change in how our minds are working" (3). He later supports this idea, as previous classmates have already addressed, by generalizing the purpose of innovations as the "making [of] something new that will better serve human need" (4). Thus, Murray deduces that as the needs of humans change, evoked by changes in thought processing, new mediums are created that "will carry us gracefully to the next level of information control and systematic thought" (4).
ReplyDeleteManovich makes his interpretation of new media very clear as he structures his definition into eight propositions. Overall, he narrows his definition of new media down to digital computer technology, but asserts that the technology must be the means "for final distribution" and not just for "production and storage" (17). Thus, for something to be classified as new media, humans must be interacting directly with the computer technology. Manovich also claims that new media is simply the extension of old media and is constantly building upon already existing technology (19). Finally, he notes that the culture of a society directly impacts the advancement of new media, and likewise, new media evokes many cultural consequences.
My definition of new media has changed minimally since my exposure to the ideas of Murray and Manovich. I already perceived new media as mainly computer technology that is an extension of old media and has cultural implications. Quite obvious to me, yet no less important, is Murray's idea that advancements in new media spur directly from human need; otherwise there would be no drive for their development in the first place. Murray sums up new media most fittingly by suggesting that societies "will be the makers of the labyrinth" and that new media is the building block that we're using to construct the passage (11).
Like Lena, when I came to class my concept of "new media" was far from defined. In my opinion, new media is created whenever an object is altered from it's original state, but each our our class discussions is slowly altering my views. Murray and Manovich's perspectives also helped to shine some light on this somewhat convoluted topic.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Murray's piece, I understood her view of new media to more or less encompass the computer and man's relationship with it. She defined new media as an ever changing representation of how our mind's are working at a point in time, and also described the medium as "an extension of man"(7). In essence, Murray was of the mindset that human's were the ones who dictated what media would be created and when. This media would be practical and useful in society at said point in time, and would "better serve human need"(4). She also mentioned a "dawning sense of globalism"(3), which addresses the idea that with the internet (and various other technological advances) we can communicate to any point of the world with the push of a button.
Manovich defined his views of new media in a different fashion. He saw 8 propositions of new media. Like Josten, I found number 6 to be the most interesting. Each recent technological advance attempts to make life even "easier" than its predecessor. To me, some of them seem a waste of time. For instance, my Uncle recently purchased a gadget from Apple that allows him to access YouTube via his television. However, he also bought a new computer because it has superior video capabilities. It seems silly that people are now buying phones to access the internet and listen to music, or buying televisions so that they can search for random videos on YouTube. Like Josten stated in his comment, it seems that we are obsessed with any technological advance that we can get our hands on. We aren't satisfied with the gadgets of our time and are constantly searching for something smaller, faster, and more capable.
The two authors greatly changed my perception of new media. I came into this class thinking that new media dealt only with technology, and I ignored other mediums such as photography or still-art. I also didn't stop to think about the relationship between man and technology and their evolution together. Overall, my definition of new media is still a bit hazy, but I'm looking forward to learning more about it!