I believe that since 1981, when Baudrillard published Requiem for the Media, this revolution has been slowly taking place, as in, interactive media is on the rise. As we talked about in class, shows like American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance allow the viewers to respond back to the media in a new way, affecting the lives of contestants and affecting the show itself. According to Baudrillard, the media of his time spoke "in such a way as to exclude any response anywhere." This is simply not the rule anymore. Most shows, admittedly, do not give their viewers such an opportunity, but such shows do exist, and that's a start.
For me, revolutionary is being a part of the medium. For example, in Star Trek: Generations, Captain Jean Luc Picard uses a nifty little piece of medium on the holodeck. He enters a chapter of a book, with the computer generating people, sounds, etc. He is able to interact with the people, props, etc. I mean, being able to physically interact with a book and its characters? That is my idea of revolutionary.
I found it interesting that Baudrillard said "...one cannot break the monopoly of speech if one's goal is simply to distribute it equally to everyone." Even though this monopoly of speech is already being broken down, how do you think a goal of distribution to narrower audiences would help? Could it be that since not everyone has the same technology available, that trying to get everyone to have the same advanced media slows down progress? Could more revolutionary media, like the 'Interactive-Hologram-Book,' have a better chance at becoming a reality if we don't aim to distribute it equally?
It's hard to find instances in today's world where response is not a key component. As mentioned above, TV shows such as American Idol are dependent on viewer participation and the audience's opinion. The internet alone has created a world of response: Blogs, product reviews, Yelp, and social networking sites all flourish thanks to our need to transmit response. On top of this, practically every sect of our capitalistic society relies on response for success; businesses, politicians, and propositions rise and die based on the collective response of the people. So, in regards to Baudrillard's belief that the only revolution "lies in restoring the possibility of response," I believe such revitalization is unnecessary, as response is already a core component of our world.
Nowadays, I do think that the biggest revolution has been how interactive media has become. When people refer to the steps society has taken in the field of new media everything is centered on the fact that everything is much more interactive. One has a much bigger chance for a response to various forms of media nowadays then in the past. For example, noting my love of sports, there’s a show on ESPN called Sports Nation where there are ‘tweets’ throughout the show and interactive polls during the show. I don’t know, but for me that kind of sums up how society is progressing in terms of new media.
I think my definition of something ‘revolutionary’ in the field of new media continues to deal with interactivity. I suppose as things continue to form a global network, I see the media continuing to change to fit our needs and wants. As we continue to find new ways to connect, as we’ve talked about in class, I think it is inevitable we will start developing on a global scale rather than national, and that in itself is revolutionary, considering how society started out.
Overall I agree. Revolutions can be defined one way as a radically different way of thought or expression, especially through communication(there might be more, but these are the first things that come to mind). First humans communicated only in person, but that greatly limited the scope. Then there was the telephone, which allowed people to talk to each other from a distance. Then the printing press allowed mass communication, but it was only one-way. The logical next step would be to have interactivity--and have the thing you're interacting with answer you back.
I agree with David that the "revolution" that Baudrillard talked about is already and definitely under way, especially in the richer countries today. I wouldn't say that it's already done and over with because there are a few things having to do with interactivity that are still being developed. There are, as well, many places in the world where technologies/mediums that enable this interactivity have not been introduced or implanted in. So overall, we're currently already experiencing the "revolution," but it is not yet finished.
Perhaps when this piece was written by Jean Baudrillard, restoring the "possibility of response" would have been revolutionary in the media world. However, I would have to agree with the above comments that today, new media is designed with the viewer in mind and tries to enable the viewer to jump in with their own comments, questions, views, etc. There are so many TV shows where you can "vote for your favorite (fill in the blank)", and though there are arguments that these kind of shows are rigged, it does not change the fact that responding to media is at least being tried and experimented with.
I think how one can personalize media today to cater to their own wants or needs is fairly revolutionary. You can put whatever you want on your facebook, you can bookmark websites that you like; even the advertisements you see on web pages are directed to your interests. It makes media much more personal, and, in my opinion, much more approachable.
Society today, however, is getting closer and closer to “restoring this possibility of response” (281). In other words, we currently find ourselves amongst a mass media revolution in which the media allows for an exchange of communication. Baudrillard states that, “consumption goods also constitute a mass medium” and that functional objects posses no response (281). This certainly makes more sense in earlier times, but I think the statement doesn’t hold well when applied to the present or future. For example, the public has the ability to purchase shoes online. Some shoe companies allow for a buyer to customize their own personal shoe. The option to customize a shoe online provides a customer with a voice and the ability to respond.
Also, the public can speak and exchange communication with mass media by choosing whether or not to support a company. It goes back to capitalism and the capitalist’s focus on profits or political influence. We can choose to watch, listen, or read whatever we want! Because of this, the public has power over the media and can respond effectively.
For Baudrillard to say that the media is capable of having such manipulative powers because it doesn’t allow for a public response is not completely true. Society as a whole is shifting from having a mass media that lacks an exchange of communication to a media that receives responses from the public.
I agree with all of the previous responses and the idea that revolutionary media could be more interactive than we already have, or the idea of more personalized media. Rebecca's idea about interacting with character's of a book seems by far the most revolutionary. This would be the most developed version of the idea of response (like the television show So You Think You Can Dance where voters control who progresses). The level of communication would be at its peak of speed, therefore increasing interactivity.
To begin, I mostly agree with what everyone has said. I do believe that the media today has provided opportunities to interact and is not all non-responsive. All the examples listed including television programs, such as American Idol, blogging, twitter, and several other media objects have been put to use by people. Media is infact undergoing a revolution and becoming far more interactive for the consumers. Revolution, to me, entails a turn around of what normal. In this case, I think it involves communication and involvement of the masses.
However, Baudrillard states, "We live in the era of non-response- of irresponsibility." (281) The important part of that sentence is irresponsibility. Human beings all over the world have become so dependent on media objects and therefore have left their everyday responsibilities in the hands of media. For example, the internet does the research for us. How many of us actually go to the library and do interactive research? Not many. This provides an alternate side to our so-called revolutionary era. However much we continue to grow towards interactivity with media, I still believe we are not there and may never fully be there if we continue to lean on new media to do our work for us.
Another comment I thought was true and interesting that Baudrillard said was, "We are no longer permitted to give...but only take and to make use of." This statement holds valuable truth in our society. We continue to recieve objects that we use merely for our benefit and "to make use of." Overall, human beings do occasionally want some involvement and will create ways to do so, but full involvement and interactivity with media will be difficult to accomplish because of the numerous people that simply want media to "make use of," and be done with.
I absolutely agree with Baudrillard that the revolution of the media has been the ability to communicate and respond. I also agree with what everyone has wrote about the revolution of the media being the transformation into a medium of communication. I believe that this may be what could separate the new media from the old; the idea of a media that elicits and accepts responses. Certainly the ability to communicate via and with media was the "tipping point" in the public's interest with the media. This was surely a revolution because not only did media gain popularity, but it also changed into something different, something with more dimensions, and something that the people wanted.
Baudrillard highlights the direction and trends of the media into a focus on the media as a form of communication. "For the first time in history, the media make possible the participation of the masses in collective process that is social and socialized, participation in which the practical means are in the hands of the masses themselves" (Baudrillard 280). As others mentioned, it is interesting that he wrote this in 1981, before the internet existed.
It is very clear that Baudrillard did not believe that new technologies such as a TV set or camera created any new revolutionary exchange between media and man. As he states on page 281, he refuses to think that it is any easier to communicate with a TV set than it is with a toaster. He says that a TV set does not offer a higher amount of interaction or response than a household appliance does.
I disagree because today, it could be argued that TV is an interactive medium. We discussed several viewer-motivated shows in class, in which viewers can vote to decide the fate of contestants in various competitive reality shows. People can also call in to Larry King Live and other talk shows with their questions and comments. Some TV remotes even have buttons that allow the viewer to vote on an event as it is unfolding live on the screen. I remember watching a football game on Cox one time and being able to guess the outcome of the game by pressing “A”, “B”, or “C” on my remote. While the TV does not directly communicate or talk back to its viewer (which I also believe is coming in the near future – voice activated TV), the content indirectly does.
Something is revolutionary if there has been nothing of its kind yet, and if there is a need for it. I believe that because media today is constantly being improved and advanced to meet peoples’ needs and desires, it is revolutionary. On our computers and phones, we are able to talk to just about anyone we want. New revolutionary media outlets allow us to communicate easier and more quickly than ever, through programs such as Skype and Facebook. While we may not be communicating with forms of media, we are communicating through them.
I just wanted to clarify that this piece was first published in 1972. I know one of the comments mentions the publication date of 1981 . . . but that was for the English translation. Does knowing that it was published in the early 70s change your interpretations at all?
I agree that the possibility of response is revolutionary. The interactive aspect of media has developed so much in just this decade. Interactive amusement rides, interactive shows, and interactive television have all impacted media as we know it. We are now able to control more of the media itself. We not only decide what may be shown or written up, but we also provide some aspect of the media (tweets, blogs, etc). This is revolutionizing media because now media is never set in stone, but constantly being shaped by our words and actions. Something revolutionary, to me, is something that drastically impacts. The interactive-ness of media is drastically changing what media is.
I would think it revolution to have certain media be able to accept responses. If I could have a conversation with the TV, and the TV would be able to act as I told it to, I would consider that new media. In another sense, I am able to respond to the TV. I can pick up a remote and change the channel, turn the volume up or down and even adjust the picture. I may not be verbally communicating with the TV but I can still send messages to the TV and it can act in accordance. There are also many forms of new media that are formatted to fit your personal likes and dislikes.
The only way I ever see this revolution to come about would be if we could make technology “think.” How any form of new media going to respond (not a programmed response) unless it can “think” for itself?
The people are powerless against those who control the media because of their lack of ability to make their responses known. Baudrillard states that "power belongs to the one who can give and cannot be repaid...the same goes for the media; they speak...but in such a way as to exclude any response anywhere." That is why power belongs completely to the media. By using a medium, people can absorb all sorts of propaganda and misinformation, but they cannot return fire. Computers and television sets are not like people which one can argue against and fight back. The media is untouchable, they hold the "monopoly of speech." Until the people take back some of the power, they will have a harder time revolting.
I agree with Danica in that the interactive state of media is mind-blowing at present time. However, I also agree with other writers in that I don't think media needs much attention put towards its revitalization. Because of our ever-changing thoughts and opinions, media is constantly forced to change in order to maintain a level of approval. As Danica said in her post, media has changed drastically over the past decade, and decades before that. Who's to say that in another ten years we won't have crazy inventions such as books with alternative endings, or Skype via hologram?
With the control we have now over the media, especially with sites such as MySpace, Twitter, and Facebook where people constantly feel the need to contribute their personal opinions, I feel the "re-vamping" of media is inevitable. Media is constantly changing because it is a reflection of the people it caters to.
Knowing that this piece was written in the 1970's changed my opinion a little bit. I did some research and found that things like email, video games, and personal computers were just taking shape in the 70's. For the most part, when these were first invented, the public could not respond to them. It would have been hard for the public to put their ideas in and change the media. So I believe that in his time, Baudrillard's perspective was an accurate one.
Now that we have grown and new media has taken hold of our culture, I definitely do believe that we are able to respond and interact. Some revolutionary technologies I feel worth mentioning are the ipod and texting. They have become so ingrained into our society that I couldn't imagine life without them. For me, that is the definition of revolutionary. It is difficult for me to picture what new medias will be invented, but in order to be revolutionary, they will have to change the world as the ones that came before have.
Direct response to the media is, indeed, a revolutionary concept. This will change the world as we know it. We do have a response to media in a small part today. However, if there was a direct speech-response correlation with no time in between, then society will be changed.
What was interesting in Baudrillard's essay was he states, "The social is thus thrown out of equilibrium, whereas repaying disrupts the power relationship." This brings to question the idea if there is power given to those who can give and cannot be repaid. If this is true, then direct response to any media will be life changing. This will change relationships between the news (on TV) and the viewers, the president (when giving speeches on TV) and the constituents, and pretty much anyone on TV and the watchers.
I don’t entirely agree with Baudrillard because there are other ways in which new media could be revolutionary without necessarily allowing for response. While media that allowed for more communication would in fact be revolutionary, so would any other new media that was fresh and unlike anything before it. Right now, however, the ability for response is the main focus of much of society, so it is likely that new media produced in the near future will have something to do with increasing communication.
I agree with Nathan C: "(his) definition of something ‘revolutionary’ in the field of new media continues to deal with interactivity." However, I'd take this one step further. I think the current revolution in the field of new media is user-generated content. According to wikipedia, this term emerged in 2005 to describe media content produced by end-users. I think new media is taking a trend toward more and more user-generated content.
I think user-generated content is more than just a "response," as it carries more weight. But, I can agree with Vanessa, who noted that in his time, Baudrillard's perspective was an accurate one. However, I think "this possibility of response" has already been restored, and that we have moved past that to UGC.
I also agree with Baudrillard in that "there is no doubt that, to a large extent, the new meanings (events) have taken on are largely the doing of the media" (p. 283). This calls to mind symbolic interactionism, a theory predicting that language is the source of meaning. Even though new media might be mass communication and/or computer-mediated communication, I believe we form meanings based on the content and the context in which it is presented. Undoubtedly, presenting information using new media has an impact on the meanings we form as a result of the information.
(Symbolic Interactionism, George Herbert Mead Meaning is the construction of social reality. Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things. Once people define a situation as real, it's very real in its consequences. Language is the source of meaning. Meaning arises out of the social interaction people have with each other. Meaning is not inherent in objects. Meaning is negotiated through the use of language, hence the term symbolic interactionism. Symbolic interactionism is the way we learn to interpret the world. http://www.afirstlook.com/main.cfm/theory_resources/Symbolic_Interactionism#contentTop)
Much in the media world is changing along these lines as we speak. There is, at least the illusion of, real time response to current media. TV stations are allowing people to call in, submit YouTube videos, or tweet to add content to the show. The web2.0 revolution is all about users generating content and allowing other users to comment upon it. While it is changing media, I would not call it a revolution. As it stands, the user submitted content is generally cursory and not given the same amount of time as the main stories created by the larger entity hosting the show, website, blog, etc... Perhaps the revolution is yet to come, but I would not call tweeting at CNN even a coup at best.
Like most of you, I agree that the revolution of new media comes from the development of a more interactive system, and I also believe that this revolution is well underway. The technological advancements of the 20th century have made possible the responsiveness of the consumer. We now control the media by displaying interest in certain areas; thus governing what information we receive.
I think that this revolution is simply a new way of thinking and a new way of information processing. As the consumer begins to play a more integral role in the media, the influence of the producers diminishes. It seems as though the consumers are now influencing the producers and what information they provide the public, more so than the producers are influencing the consumers. The revolution in new media parallels the revolution of new age democracy, and each makes the other possible.
I feel like there have been hugely significant advances in media and technology since the time this was written. I’m also sure that many of these were thought of as revolutionary in their time, whether or not they fit Baudrillard’s view of revolutionary media. I especially think that in today’s technologically advanced world, media is being revolutionized constantly. To me revolution is merely the overturning of something old and the replacing of it. If this were the case it could be argued that nearly every bit of media common in the 1970’s has undergone one or more revolutions.
With the introduction of the internet into society, there have arrived many new ways to interact with the media. If media is thought of as a mean or channel of general communication, information, or entertainment in society (such as newspapers, radio, or television) then there are many interactive forms of media in modern society. You can call in to various radio stations and state your opinions for the listeners to hear. You have long been able to write in to TV stations or newspapers. But with the emergence of the internet it is now possible to comment directly about a news article or television program, whether it is via a blog, a social networking site such as Facebook, or even the company’s own webpage. In any case, it has become much easier to respond to media, even if the media doesn’t exactly respond back.
My vision of revolutionary media is full-scale immersive virtual reality, on par with the realism seen in the Matrix. To shop for clothing, one would go to a cybermall, and virtually pick out clothes and be able to judge how they fit without leaving the computer. Videogames will be played not by a controller, but by your own body. 1st person shooters as a term will be a thing of the past, as all games will be 1st person. The possibilities would be endless, and laziness would most likely reign supreme.
I'm sure this comment may not be viewed as constructive, but honestly I think immersive virtual reality would upset the status quo in a drastic way. After all, people already lose their jobs over things like World of Warcraft. What will happen when millions are able to swing a sword with their own hands?
We've all established that media today is fairly interactive. We can communicate through different forms of media in ways that are very obvious--chatting on AIM, sending an email, posting a blog comment--and some ways that one may not think of instantly--voting on American Idol, TV polls asking you to press certain buttons, etc. I understand that Baudrillard wrote this in the 70s, when So You Think You Can Dance still had another 40 years in the womb, but I find it odd that he placed the television set next to the toaster on the interactivity scale. Even during his time stations aired informercials or advertisements with flashing numbers to "call within the next 5 minutes and..." Now, this isn't media responding, but it is conversing with the audience, giving the viewer a message. The television was used as a vessel for communication. However, I'm sure the revolutionary type of media that Baudrillard imagined involved a more personal response from any type of media, a media that is still far ahead in our future (robots with which you can hold a conversation, virtual reality living, etc). I agree with Josten that immersive virtual reality would be revolutionary, though I hope I never see the day, especially when kids begin buying video games where they themselves are in the gaming world, holding any type of weapon, and taking a life with (seemingly) their own hands.
I agree with Baudrillard to some extent. At the time that he wrote this, I do believe that the most prominent revolution to existing media would be to make it interactive. However, as media has transformed over the last 20-30 years, we have seen the evolution of interactive media. This ranges from video games that are played with people on the opposite side of the world, to the television programs which have already been sufficiently discussed, even to the existence of this blog (which wouldn't function without the existence of interactivity).
I don't believe that this notion of "response" is the only thing that should be considered for the future revolution of media. Revolutionary to me means that something is considerably changed from its original form, or even its most recent form. I may be an optimist, but I think there are many revolutions to come for media, some of which will include more interactivity among the consumers of media, but many others which will come from very different sources. I don't think that response from viewers is the only thing necessary in order to create a revolution of media.
I believe that the basis of all technology development today is to increase interaction between people. We have social networking sites that connect people and allow you to "comment" on someone's post, which creates a dialog between the two peoples and also the others that can see said post and comment. Video games have become more interactive by hooking up to the internet, allowing players to communicate while participating in the game.
I also think (just like many other posters for this blog) that revolution will come in the form of increasing interactivity between peoples.
It is also helpful to define revolution as a "fundamental change in power or organizational structure over a short period of time." It is ironic that I got this definition from Wikipedia, as some others have talked about UGC and it is an example of the movement toward reciprocity. But getting back to the definition, new media and UGC fits perfectly into this definition and how Baudrillard sees it. The revolution of new media now and in the future is moving toward changing who controls media and making media more interactive.
Personally, I believe revolution is a process of changing the structure, replacement or innovation through the exchange of information, which will ultimately satisfy the need of most people. I agree with the idea that revolution is the possibility of response, since the need of the society has to be disclosed through feedbacks and responds, therefore gives it a reason to advance at the same time. For example, there was no TV program regarding law issues many years ago in China. With an increasing need of people to get a general knowledge about law, a TV program including law cases and concepts has been made to satisfy this need.
The interactive media in the last decade seems to have seen the greatest increase. With the internet catching on, the addition of email, facebook, blog spots (like this one), or Myspace the ability to respond and communicate has become paramount in our culture. As an example, I finally got a Facebook last year and I immediately became friends with people I had not seen since i was in elementary school. Some of my mom's friends even found me so they could talk to her. All of this was possible through technology. There are now online classes available to get a high school diploma or even a college diploma. As we progress, so does our communication and response to new media. Being able to communicate through the internet or whatever method that one chooses through the media has been made easier because of new media. Therefore we will always be seeking out new methods of correspondence and will then progress with the new media.\
I believe that response is necessary to create revolution. Revolution is based on what the people want and how they act on it. Without response, a revolution cannot be possible. Whether it is in media or any other type of revolution, it needs the population of the masses to be successful or profitable. Nonetheless, the public does not stay interested in things that are old and used. Revolution needs to cause or have changes, something that makes it very different from old media or considerably changes this media. Because of this, I think new media has revolutionized and will definitely revolutionize in the coming years as we discover new things. I think this has taken place, as many people have stated, through interactive media, It allows us to have a response. If not many respond, it is a showing of that lack of interest and then is dropped. We are able to show our views in this way.
As many others have already suggested, we are experiencing Baudrillard's revolution today. With the Internet and interactive television, many different media are giving us the ability to respond to them. This ability to respond and interact has become essential to capture viewers' attention. The success of contest shows like "American Idol" and "So You Think You Can Dance?" is a testament to how important media interactivity has become.
The idea that we are no longer consumers, but participants, is very appealing. Until now, we have simply been depositories for someone else's messages carried by media into our homes. This interactivity has given power to the masses to actually affect and participate in media. Because of this, we have become much more involved in media, making it a much more powerful and valuable tool.
Like many of the other comments, I believe that media has already become much more interactive. I also believe that it will continue to become more interactive as new ways of registering the public's responses become available. However, everything concerning interacting with media that is now created will just be a new play on an old theme. I'm not sure what revolutionary form new media will take. Perhaps the "holodeck" as mentioned in the first comment isn't so far off. We've pretty much covered the visual and auditory senses when it comes to media, but what about touch, taste and smell? This would not only further the interactivity of media but would create something truly new.
I believe that since 1981, when Baudrillard published Requiem for the Media, this revolution has been slowly taking place, as in, interactive media is on the rise. As we talked about in class, shows like American Idol and So You Think You Can Dance allow the viewers to respond back to the media in a new way, affecting the lives of contestants and affecting the show itself. According to Baudrillard, the media of his time spoke "in such a way as to exclude any response anywhere." This is simply not the rule anymore. Most shows, admittedly, do not give their viewers such an opportunity, but such shows do exist, and that's a start.
ReplyDeleteFor me, revolutionary is being a part of the medium. For example, in Star Trek: Generations, Captain Jean Luc Picard uses a nifty little piece of medium on the holodeck. He enters a chapter of a book, with the computer generating people, sounds, etc. He is able to interact with the people, props, etc. I mean, being able to physically interact with a book and its characters? That is my idea of revolutionary.
I found it interesting that Baudrillard said "...one cannot break the monopoly of speech if one's goal is simply to distribute it equally to everyone." Even though this monopoly of speech is already being broken down, how do you think a goal of distribution to narrower audiences would help? Could it be that since not everyone has the same technology available, that trying to get everyone to have the same advanced media slows down progress? Could more revolutionary media, like the 'Interactive-Hologram-Book,' have a better chance at becoming a reality if we don't aim to distribute it equally?
It's hard to find instances in today's world where response is not a key component. As mentioned above, TV shows such as American Idol are dependent on viewer participation and the audience's opinion. The internet alone has created a world of response: Blogs, product reviews, Yelp, and social networking sites all flourish thanks to our need to transmit response. On top of this, practically every sect of our capitalistic society relies on response for success; businesses, politicians, and propositions rise and die based on the collective response of the people. So, in regards to Baudrillard's belief that the only revolution "lies in restoring the possibility of response," I believe such revitalization is unnecessary, as response is already a core component of our world.
ReplyDeleteNowadays, I do think that the biggest revolution has been how interactive media has become. When people refer to the steps society has taken in the field of new media everything is centered on the fact that everything is much more interactive. One has a much bigger chance for a response to various forms of media nowadays then in the past. For example, noting my love of sports, there’s a show on ESPN called Sports Nation where there are ‘tweets’ throughout the show and interactive polls during the show. I don’t know, but for me that kind of sums up how society is progressing in terms of new media.
ReplyDeleteI think my definition of something ‘revolutionary’ in the field of new media continues to deal with interactivity. I suppose as things continue to form a global network, I see the media continuing to change to fit our needs and wants. As we continue to find new ways to connect, as we’ve talked about in class, I think it is inevitable we will start developing on a global scale rather than national, and that in itself is revolutionary, considering how society started out.
Overall I agree. Revolutions can be defined one way as a radically different way of thought or expression, especially through communication(there might be more, but these are the first things that come to mind). First humans communicated only in person, but that greatly limited the scope. Then there was the telephone, which allowed people to talk to each other from a distance. Then the printing press allowed mass communication, but it was only one-way. The logical next step would be to have interactivity--and have the thing you're interacting with answer you back.
ReplyDeleteI agree with David that the "revolution" that Baudrillard talked about is already and definitely under way, especially in the richer countries today. I wouldn't say that it's already done and over with because there are a few things having to do with interactivity that are still being developed. There are, as well, many places in the world where technologies/mediums that enable this interactivity have not been introduced or implanted in. So overall, we're currently already experiencing the "revolution," but it is not yet finished.
-Jennifer Ly Pham
Perhaps when this piece was written by Jean Baudrillard, restoring the "possibility of response" would have been revolutionary in the media world. However, I would have to agree with the above comments that today, new media is designed with the viewer in mind and tries to enable the viewer to jump in with their own comments, questions, views, etc. There are so many TV shows where you can "vote for your favorite (fill in the blank)", and though there are arguments that these kind of shows are rigged, it does not change the fact that responding to media is at least being tried and experimented with.
ReplyDeleteI think how one can personalize media today to cater to their own wants or needs is fairly revolutionary. You can put whatever you want on your facebook, you can bookmark websites that you like; even the advertisements you see on web pages are directed to your interests. It makes media much more personal, and, in my opinion, much more approachable.
Society today, however, is getting closer and closer to “restoring this possibility of response” (281). In other words, we currently find ourselves amongst a mass media revolution in which the media allows for an exchange of communication. Baudrillard states that, “consumption goods also constitute a mass medium” and that functional objects posses no response (281). This certainly makes more sense in earlier times, but I think the statement doesn’t hold well when applied to the present or future. For example, the public has the ability to purchase shoes online. Some shoe companies allow for a buyer to customize their own personal shoe. The option to customize a shoe online provides a customer with a voice and the ability to respond.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the public can speak and exchange communication with mass media by choosing whether or not to support a company. It goes back to capitalism and the capitalist’s focus on profits or political influence. We can choose to watch, listen, or read whatever we want! Because of this, the public has power over the media and can respond effectively.
For Baudrillard to say that the media is capable of having such manipulative powers because it doesn’t allow for a public response is not completely true. Society as a whole is shifting from having a mass media that lacks an exchange of communication to a media that receives responses from the public.
I agree with all of the previous responses and the idea that revolutionary media could be more interactive than we already have, or the idea of more personalized media. Rebecca's idea about interacting with character's of a book seems by far the most revolutionary. This would be the most developed version of the idea of response (like the television show So You Think You Can Dance where voters control who progresses). The level of communication would be at its peak of speed, therefore increasing interactivity.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, I mostly agree with what everyone has said. I do believe that the media today has provided opportunities to interact and is not all non-responsive. All the examples listed including television programs, such as American Idol, blogging, twitter, and several other media objects have been put to use by people. Media is infact undergoing a revolution and becoming far more interactive for the consumers. Revolution, to me, entails a turn around of what normal. In this case, I think it involves communication and involvement of the masses.
ReplyDeleteHowever, Baudrillard states, "We live in the era of non-response- of irresponsibility." (281) The important part of that sentence is irresponsibility. Human beings all over the world have become so dependent on media objects and therefore have left their everyday responsibilities in the hands of media. For example, the internet does the research for us. How many of us actually go to the library and do interactive research? Not many. This provides an alternate side to our so-called revolutionary era. However much we continue to grow towards interactivity with media, I still believe we are not there and may never fully be there if we continue to lean on new media to do our work for us.
Another comment I thought was true and interesting that Baudrillard said was, "We are no longer permitted to give...but only take and to make use of." This statement holds valuable truth in our society. We continue to recieve objects that we use merely for our benefit and "to make use of." Overall, human beings do occasionally want some involvement and will create ways to do so, but full involvement and interactivity with media will be difficult to accomplish because of the numerous people that simply want media to "make use of," and be done with.
I absolutely agree with Baudrillard that the revolution of the media has been the ability to communicate and respond. I also agree with what everyone has wrote about the revolution of the media being the transformation into a medium of communication. I believe that this may be what could separate the new media from the old; the idea of a media that elicits and accepts responses. Certainly the ability to communicate via and with media was the "tipping point" in the public's interest with the media. This was surely a revolution because not only did media gain popularity, but it also changed into something different, something with more dimensions, and something that the people wanted.
ReplyDeleteBaudrillard highlights the direction and trends of the media into a focus on the media as a form of communication. "For the first time in history, the media make possible the participation of the masses in collective process that is social and socialized, participation in which the practical means are in the hands of the masses themselves" (Baudrillard 280). As others mentioned, it is interesting that he wrote this in 1981, before the internet existed.
It is very clear that Baudrillard did not believe that new technologies such as a TV set or camera created any new revolutionary exchange between media and man. As he states on page 281, he refuses to think that it is any easier to communicate with a TV set than it is with a toaster. He says that a TV set does not offer a higher amount of interaction or response than a household appliance does.
ReplyDeleteI disagree because today, it could be argued that TV is an interactive medium. We discussed several viewer-motivated shows in class, in which viewers can vote to decide the fate of contestants in various competitive reality shows. People can also call in to Larry King Live and other talk shows with their questions and comments. Some TV remotes even have buttons that allow the viewer to vote on an event as it is unfolding live on the screen. I remember watching a football game on Cox one time and being able to guess the outcome of the game by pressing “A”, “B”, or “C” on my remote. While the TV does not directly communicate or talk back to its viewer (which I also believe is coming in the near future – voice activated TV), the content indirectly does.
Something is revolutionary if there has been nothing of its kind yet, and if there is a need for it. I believe that because media today is constantly being improved and advanced to meet peoples’ needs and desires, it is revolutionary. On our computers and phones, we are able to talk to just about anyone we want. New revolutionary media outlets allow us to communicate easier and more quickly than ever, through programs such as Skype and Facebook. While we may not be communicating with forms of media, we are communicating through them.
I just wanted to clarify that this piece was first published in 1972. I know one of the comments mentions the publication date of 1981 . . . but that was for the English translation. Does knowing that it was published in the early 70s change your interpretations at all?
ReplyDeleteI agree that the possibility of response is revolutionary. The interactive aspect of media has developed so much in just this decade. Interactive amusement rides, interactive shows, and interactive television have all impacted media as we know it. We are now able to control more of the media itself. We not only decide what may be shown or written up, but we also provide some aspect of the media (tweets, blogs, etc). This is revolutionizing media because now media is never set in stone, but constantly being shaped by our words and actions. Something revolutionary, to me, is something that drastically impacts. The interactive-ness of media is drastically changing what media is.
ReplyDeleteI would think it revolution to have certain media be able to accept responses. If I could have a conversation with the TV, and the TV would be able to act as I told it to, I would consider that new media. In another sense, I am able to respond to the TV. I can pick up a remote and change the channel, turn the volume up or down and even adjust the picture. I may not be verbally communicating with the TV but I can still send messages to the TV and it can act in accordance. There are also many forms of new media that are formatted to fit your personal likes and dislikes.
ReplyDeleteThe only way I ever see this revolution to come about would be if we could make technology “think.” How any form of new media going to respond (not a programmed response) unless it can “think” for itself?
The people are powerless against those who control the media because of their lack of ability to make their responses known. Baudrillard states that "power belongs to the one who can give and cannot be repaid...the same goes for the media; they speak...but in such a way as to exclude any response anywhere." That is why power belongs completely to the media. By using a medium, people can absorb all sorts of propaganda and misinformation, but they cannot return fire. Computers and television sets are not like people which one can argue against and fight back. The media is untouchable, they hold the "monopoly of speech." Until the people take back some of the power, they will have a harder time revolting.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Danica in that the interactive state of media is mind-blowing at present time. However, I also agree with other writers in that I don't think media needs much attention put towards its revitalization. Because of our ever-changing thoughts and opinions, media is constantly forced to change in order to maintain a level of approval. As Danica said in her post, media has changed drastically over the past decade, and decades before that. Who's to say that in another ten years we won't have crazy inventions such as books with alternative endings, or Skype via hologram?
ReplyDeleteWith the control we have now over the media, especially with sites such as MySpace, Twitter, and Facebook where people constantly feel the need to contribute their personal opinions, I feel the "re-vamping" of media is inevitable. Media is constantly changing because it is a reflection of the people it caters to.
Knowing that this piece was written in the 1970's changed my opinion a little bit. I did some research and found that things like email, video games, and personal computers were just taking shape in the 70's. For the most part, when these were first invented, the public could not respond to them. It would have been hard for the public to put their ideas in and change the media. So I believe that in his time, Baudrillard's perspective was an accurate one.
ReplyDeleteNow that we have grown and new media has taken hold of our culture, I definitely do believe that we are able to respond and interact. Some revolutionary technologies I feel worth mentioning are the ipod and texting. They have become so ingrained into our society that I couldn't imagine life without them. For me, that is the definition of revolutionary. It is difficult for me to picture what new medias will be invented, but in order to be revolutionary, they will have to change the world as the ones that came before have.
Direct response to the media is, indeed, a revolutionary concept. This will change the world as we know it. We do have a response to media in a small part today. However, if there was a direct speech-response correlation with no time in between, then society will be changed.
ReplyDeleteWhat was interesting in Baudrillard's essay was he states, "The social is thus thrown out of equilibrium, whereas repaying disrupts the power relationship." This brings to question the idea if there is power given to those who can give and cannot be repaid. If this is true, then direct response to any media will be life changing. This will change relationships between the news (on TV) and the viewers, the president (when giving speeches on TV) and the constituents, and pretty much anyone on TV and the watchers.
A revolution in culture may be close.
I don’t entirely agree with Baudrillard because there are other ways in which new media could be revolutionary without necessarily allowing for response. While media that allowed for more communication would in fact be revolutionary, so would any other new media that was fresh and unlike anything before it. Right now, however, the ability for response is the main focus of much of society, so it is likely that new media produced in the near future will have something to do with increasing communication.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nathan C: "(his) definition of something ‘revolutionary’ in the field of new media continues to deal with interactivity." However, I'd take this one step further. I think the current revolution in the field of new media is user-generated content. According to wikipedia, this term emerged in 2005 to describe media content produced by end-users. I think new media is taking a trend toward more and more user-generated content.
ReplyDeleteI think user-generated content is more than just a "response," as it carries more weight. But, I can agree with Vanessa, who noted that in his time, Baudrillard's perspective was an accurate one. However, I think "this possibility of response" has already been restored, and that we have moved past that to UGC.
I also agree with Baudrillard in that "there is no doubt that, to a large extent, the new meanings (events) have taken on are largely the doing of the media" (p. 283). This calls to mind symbolic interactionism, a theory predicting that language is the source of meaning. Even though new media might be mass communication and/or computer-mediated communication, I believe we form meanings based on the content and the context in which it is presented. Undoubtedly, presenting information using new media has an impact on the meanings we form as a result of the information.
(Symbolic Interactionism, George Herbert Mead
Meaning is the construction of social reality. Humans act toward people or things on the basis of the meanings they assign to those people or things. Once people define a situation as real, it's very real in its consequences.
Language is the source of meaning. Meaning arises out of the social interaction people have with each other. Meaning is not inherent in objects. Meaning is negotiated through the use of language, hence the term symbolic interactionism.
Symbolic interactionism is the way we learn to interpret the world.
http://www.afirstlook.com/main.cfm/theory_resources/Symbolic_Interactionism#contentTop)
Much in the media world is changing along these lines as we speak. There is, at least the illusion of, real time response to current media. TV stations are allowing people to call in, submit YouTube videos, or tweet to add content to the show. The web2.0 revolution is all about users generating content and allowing other users to comment upon it. While it is changing media, I would not call it a revolution. As it stands, the user submitted content is generally cursory and not given the same amount of time as the main stories created by the larger entity hosting the show, website, blog, etc... Perhaps the revolution is yet to come, but I would not call tweeting at CNN even a coup at best.
ReplyDeleteLike most of you, I agree that the revolution of new media comes from the development of a more interactive system, and I also believe that this revolution is well underway. The technological advancements of the 20th century have made possible the responsiveness of the consumer. We now control the media by displaying interest in certain areas; thus governing what information we receive.
ReplyDeleteI think that this revolution is simply a new way of thinking and a new way of information processing. As the consumer begins to play a more integral role in the media, the influence of the producers diminishes. It seems as though the consumers are now influencing the producers and what information they provide the public, more so than the producers are influencing the consumers. The revolution in new media parallels the revolution of new age democracy, and each makes the other possible.
I feel like there have been hugely significant advances in media and technology since the time this was written. I’m also sure that many of these were thought of as revolutionary in their time, whether or not they fit Baudrillard’s view of revolutionary media. I especially think that in today’s technologically advanced world, media is being revolutionized constantly. To me revolution is merely the overturning of something old and the replacing of it. If this were the case it could be argued that nearly every bit of media common in the 1970’s has undergone one or more revolutions.
ReplyDeleteWith the introduction of the internet into society, there have arrived many new ways to interact with the media. If media is thought of as a mean or channel of general communication, information, or entertainment in society (such as newspapers, radio, or television) then there are many interactive forms of media in modern society. You can call in to various radio stations and state your opinions for the listeners to hear. You have long been able to write in to TV stations or newspapers. But with the emergence of the internet it is now possible to comment directly about a news article or television program, whether it is via a blog, a social networking site such as Facebook, or even the company’s own webpage. In any case, it has become much easier to respond to media, even if the media doesn’t exactly respond back.
My vision of revolutionary media is full-scale immersive virtual reality, on par with the realism seen in the Matrix. To shop for clothing, one would go to a cybermall, and virtually pick out clothes and be able to judge how they fit without leaving the computer. Videogames will be played not by a controller, but by your own body. 1st person shooters as a term will be a thing of the past, as all games will be 1st person. The possibilities would be endless, and laziness would most likely reign supreme.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure this comment may not be viewed as constructive, but honestly I think immersive virtual reality would upset the status quo in a drastic way. After all, people already lose their jobs over things like World of Warcraft. What will happen when millions are able to swing a sword with their own hands?
We've all established that media today is fairly interactive. We can communicate through different forms of media in ways that are very obvious--chatting on AIM, sending an email, posting a blog comment--and some ways that one may not think of instantly--voting on American Idol, TV polls asking you to press certain buttons, etc. I understand that Baudrillard wrote this in the 70s, when So You Think You Can Dance still had another 40 years in the womb, but I find it odd that he placed the television set next to the toaster on the interactivity scale. Even during his time stations aired informercials or advertisements with flashing numbers to "call within the next 5 minutes and..." Now, this isn't media responding, but it is conversing with the audience, giving the viewer a message. The television was used as a vessel for communication.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm sure the revolutionary type of media that Baudrillard imagined involved a more personal response from any type of media, a media that is still far ahead in our future (robots with which you can hold a conversation, virtual reality living, etc). I agree with Josten that immersive virtual reality would be revolutionary, though I hope I never see the day, especially when kids begin buying video games where they themselves are in the gaming world, holding any type of weapon, and taking a life with (seemingly) their own hands.
I agree with Baudrillard to some extent. At the time that he wrote this, I do believe that the most prominent revolution to existing media would be to make it interactive. However, as media has transformed over the last 20-30 years, we have seen the evolution of interactive media. This ranges from video games that are played with people on the opposite side of the world, to the television programs which have already been sufficiently discussed, even to the existence of this blog (which wouldn't function without the existence of interactivity).
ReplyDeleteI don't believe that this notion of "response" is the only thing that should be considered for the future revolution of media. Revolutionary to me means that something is considerably changed from its original form, or even its most recent form. I may be an optimist, but I think there are many revolutions to come for media, some of which will include more interactivity among the consumers of media, but many others which will come from very different sources. I don't think that response from viewers is the only thing necessary in order to create a revolution of media.
I believe that the basis of all technology development today is to increase interaction between people. We have social networking sites that connect people and allow you to "comment" on someone's post, which creates a dialog between the two peoples and also the others that can see said post and comment. Video games have become more interactive by hooking up to the internet, allowing players to communicate while participating in the game.
ReplyDeleteI also think (just like many other posters for this blog) that revolution will come in the form of increasing interactivity between peoples.
It is also helpful to define revolution as a "fundamental change in power or organizational structure over a short period of time." It is ironic that I got this definition from Wikipedia, as some others have talked about UGC and it is an example of the movement toward reciprocity. But getting back to the definition, new media and UGC fits perfectly into this definition and how Baudrillard sees it. The revolution of new media now and in the future is moving toward changing who controls media and making media more interactive.
Personally, I believe revolution is a process of changing the structure, replacement or innovation through the exchange of information, which will ultimately satisfy the need of most people. I agree with the idea that revolution is the possibility of response, since the need of the society has to be disclosed through feedbacks and responds, therefore gives it a reason to advance at the same time. For example, there was no TV program regarding law issues many years ago in China. With an increasing need of people to get a general knowledge about law, a TV program including law cases and concepts has been made to satisfy this need.
ReplyDeleteThe interactive media in the last decade seems to have seen the greatest increase. With the internet catching on, the addition of email, facebook, blog spots (like this one), or Myspace the ability to respond and communicate has become paramount in our culture. As an example, I finally got a Facebook last year and I immediately became friends with people I had not seen since i was in elementary school. Some of my mom's friends even found me so they could talk to her. All of this was possible through technology. There are now online classes available to get a high school diploma or even a college diploma. As we progress, so does our communication and response to new media. Being able to communicate through the internet or whatever method that one chooses through the media has been made easier because of new media. Therefore we will always be seeking out new methods of correspondence and will then progress with the new media.\
ReplyDeleteI believe that response is necessary to create revolution. Revolution is based on what the people want and how they act on it. Without response, a revolution cannot be possible. Whether it is in media or any other type of revolution, it needs the population of the masses to be successful or profitable. Nonetheless, the public does not stay interested in things that are old and used. Revolution needs to cause or have changes, something that makes it very different from old media or considerably changes this media. Because of this, I think new media has revolutionized and will definitely revolutionize in the coming years as we discover new things.
ReplyDeleteI think this has taken place, as many people have stated, through interactive media, It allows us to have a response. If not many respond, it is a showing of that lack of interest and then is dropped. We are able to show our views in this way.
As many others have already suggested, we are experiencing Baudrillard's revolution today. With the Internet and interactive television, many different media are giving us the ability to respond to them. This ability to respond and interact has become essential to capture viewers' attention. The success of contest shows like "American Idol" and "So You Think You Can Dance?" is a testament to how important media interactivity has become.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that we are no longer consumers, but participants, is very appealing. Until now, we have simply been depositories for someone else's messages carried by media into our homes. This interactivity has given power to the masses to actually affect and participate in media. Because of this, we have become much more involved in media, making it a much more powerful and valuable tool.
Like many of the other comments, I believe that media has already become much more interactive. I also believe that it will continue to become more interactive as new ways of registering the public's responses become available. However, everything concerning interacting with media that is now created will just be a new play on an old theme. I'm not sure what revolutionary form new media will take. Perhaps the "holodeck" as mentioned in the first comment isn't so far off. We've pretty much covered the visual and auditory senses when it comes to media, but what about touch, taste and smell? This would not only further the interactivity of media but would create something truly new.
ReplyDelete