McLuhan makes an important connection between a market society and the introduction of new media to the public rather than to an individual patron. Discuss your opinion on this statement.
Before mentioning the introduction of new media to the public rather than to an individual person, McLuhan speaks of a dilemma, or "the problem of individual culture and liberty in an age of mass-culture." McLuhan expounds on the dilemma in later sentences: "Western man knows that his values and modalities are the product of literacy. Yet the very means of extending those values, technologically, seem to deny and reverse them." One of McLuhan's solutions for the problem is the introduction of new electric technology, "for the electric puts the mythic or collective dimension of human experience fully into the conscious wake-a-day world." So, if this problem really does exist, the introduction of new media to the public rather than to the individual, according to McLuhan, will solve it. But does this problem really exist in today's society? Are our values a product of mass-culture? And, if so, does the widespread use of technology assist in diminishing our so-called mutual identities, cultures, and values?
The connection between a market society and the introduction to new media in terms of “mass-culture” seems to be something that can help one look into the future of new media. “It became necessary,” he says, “to examine the effect of art and literature before producing anything at all.” With that, he points out that our “mass culture” drives new media. If something isn’t up to par, it’s not going to find a place in our market. If something was just introduced to the individual, success with the new medium may not be as successful. Going back to our earlier readings about new media becoming more specialized, McLuhan also makes an interesting statement saying “The market was specializing the artist.” In other words, based on where the market was headed, artists, in this case, had to appeal to the market for success by specializing in certain areas so as to not overlap. Though McLuhan just focuses on a market society, how much do you think the introduction of new media would be hindered, if at all, in another system?
If a form of new media is going to be successful in a market economy, it can't be introduced simply to one person; it must be introduced and appeal to the public. That is the whole point of market economy: people decide what to sell, what to buy, what is popular, etc. Therefore, artists, novelists, and people who make computer programs and other forms of new media have to "study the effect of [their] art" (200) and, from observing these effects, have to change whatever they are producing to meet the needs of the consumers.
In a market economy, and more specifically a capitalistic society, many things (even those that are essential in order to survive), such as food, shelter, healthcare, and even medicine are all made into commodities. New media and art is no exception. (A commodity is something that is mass-produced with the philosophy that it could be sold for monetary value--essentially it is sold with profit on the mind). In the sense that new media is always evolving according to what the public would want, with new innovations following along the lines of the results of polls, it IS catered to the "public" rather than the individual tastes. Whatever brings most profit in a capitalistic society is usually what the manufacturers go with. Not only that, but in order to make a living, new media artists must somehow cater their art to other people's tastes to make money. So for the most part, I would have to say that I agree. -Jennifer Ly Pham
I believe this change occurred when art transformed from a perception guide to a convenient amenity or package. Art became the new style of computer or a new i-pod. Art was not only used to help people think anymore, it became a substance that was essential to human order and happiness. Because of the development of a market society, new media was able to emerge. With the market economy, people are able to spend their money how they choose. When they see some form of media that they want, they can feel free to buy it. Also because there are more people to supply for, the demand becomes greater and developments become necessary. In order to keep the masses happy, new models are essential. It was stated that, “My consumers, are they not my producers?” This is true because the new media that is invented is because of demand from the public.
McLuhan writes about past new medias and how in the eighteenth century, art and literature made a transition into a role of consumer commodity. I think this is completely relatable to new medias today. In a market society, the individual is a pittance compared to the potentials of the mass public. The forms of new media that have lasted have been those who have gained the most popularity in a timely fashion, and more importantly, those who made the most profit. These kinds of new media depend on the mass media to continue on their legacy. The important connection of new media in a market society with the mass media rather than the individual lies in whether or not the new media has made the transition into pubic commodity. McLuhan later mentions the importance of these transitions and how intriguing they are to study. I agree with the author, I believe that something in the new media has to "tip" in the mass public in order for it to be recognized for what it is.
The personalization of the computer is a natural step in a society based on equality, such as ours. even though, in the beginning, the personal computer was something that few if any could have foreseen, it was obvious even in Licklider's writings that widespread access to computers would be necessary in the future (i.e. the present), even though he thought this would come in the form of big computers being shared between many people. looking at history, all medias started in the hands of the rich and privileged and eventually either disappeared or trickled down to the peasantry. a great example of this is writing. In ancient Greece, the rich taught their children to write, while the lower classes had no knowledge of (nor need for) writing. by the dark ages, the nobility could often write, but seldom took the time to do so, relying on scribes to do their writing. Writing for the middle class only became mainstream in the renaissance, and even as recently as 60 years ago it was still common for poor farmers to be illiterate. This trend of knowledge being for the upper class is seldom (though occasionally) something prescribed by law, but rather because the poor have no need to know it. The fact that the computer has become something available to all is not due to the generosity of the computer manufacturers or the computer retailers but because of the computer's status as part of the foundation of our modern society.
I hate to simply re-state what others have previously said, but I agree with them 100 percent. A market economy relies on people as a society, rather than individuals, to make products sell. Introducing a product to an individual helps to get an idea of what people might want in developmental stages, but in order for anything to be successful a majority has to accept that form of new media (art, technology etc.). In the readings, it was stated that new media is "an extension of man", and as a result, society. The statement implies that new media constantly adapts to what the public wants right now, and the days following. In order to be successful a product must satisfy the masses. I don't see any other way around it.
Living in the market society that we do, new technology is constantly being developed with the masses in mind. The main goal of large companies is to develop that one product that is always one step ahead of the rest of the products already on the market. Almost every aspect of the technology market is highly competitive which motivates companies to develop only the newest and best products and make them available to the masses. The need for new products pushes the need for new media. The introduction to new media to an individual patron rather than the masses would decrease motivation, profit, and competition, all things that essentially drive the market society. McLuhan says, “it is necessary to understand the power and thrust of technologies to isolate the senses and thus to hypnotize society” Every time a new media is introduced the public seems to be fixated on it, some even become addicted to it. For example, once the iPod hit the market, an insane amount of people went out to buy the “latest craze”. Our society is so materialistic that once a new product emerges that trumps the rest; it does extremely well in the market because the public “needs” to have it.
In this day and age, media that is projected into society targets the masses instead of individuals because those who control the media do it with a purpose in mind whether it be to make money or to promote ideas. Not so often anymore do those who utilize the media intend to display their works with artistic innovations in mind. For those who want money and power, they need to successfully capture the attentions of as many people as possible to accomplish their goals. Whatever doesn't appeal to the masses will be shot down no matter how much individuals may support the work. In the end, the individuals cannot win against the masses.
Sometimes, introducing new media to an individual first is very beneficial. Those who create media do not necessarily know how to advertise their media. When shown to the correct individual first, the media can then be shown to a wider audience and with more credibility. Namely, say a small, privately owned company creates a new technology. Since they are not affiliated with any sort of company or organization, they have no any credibility. If they tried to distribute said technology, no one would pay any attention to it. However, if they instead took it to someone of credibility or status, someone who has the public's eye, who then distributed it to the public with their approval on it, then the technology would have a chance. Granted, the individual-first approach isn't necessary, it is just, in the right situation, very, very useful in accelerating the spread of new media. In concordance with what my colleagues have said before, it is the masses that really sell the media. ("My consumers are they not my producers?" [p. 202]) However, without the individual, sometimes the media won't even make it to the masses.
McLuhan talks about a "massive psychic chiasmus" as being a reversal of thought upon new trends. I thought, though it was an interesting choice of words, that he might just be correct. In a market economy products are generally released to the public in massive amounts making new media readily available to almost everybody. Because a new media can become available to a lot of people overnight, it can influence a strong new trend or "massive psychic chiasmus". This brought to mind flip phones. Cellphones had been around for awhile, but because of the publicity and almost instant popularity, flip phones became the new must-have. This trend took hold of so many so fast because of a wide distribution. If flip phones had been introduced on a more personal level, I am not sure they would have taken such a hold.
It is interesting to think about new media as a something that targets masses rather than individuals. Throughout history, many of the world's greatest works of art were commissioned and paid for by individuals. It is relatively recent that art, literature, and music have come to belong more to the public than to any particular individual.
Though it may have been less feasible in the past, works of art were very rarely reproduced on the scale of what we see today. Considering the Internet as new media, it seems possible that new media is helping the masses overtake the role of the individual in modern society -- Wikipedia is a fine example of this. Where before it was the responsibility of an individual (or a company, more likely) to gather the information required to build an encyclopedia, we now rely on the collective knowledge of a great number of people.
Mcluhan discusses market socities and the importance of having the consent of the mass rather than the individual. I agree with this statement although I think Julia took an interesting route on explaining the significance of the individual. However, on another note, new media is centered on impressing the masses, rather than the individual. For example, Mcluhan states, "the future will be a larger or greatly improved version of the immediate past." (199) New media centers around this statement, for the most part. Once something is invented such as the cell phone, a new version continues to develop from the older version. Now cell phones have music, touch screens, and other gadgets. Inventors of new media see what the masses enjoy and thrive with and then later on develop newer objects based on what they think the majority of the people will like.
To form a mass amount of people you need many individuals. The public's needs and wants are what drive artists it seems many of you are saying, but is new media spurring that on? Wikipedia enables more individuals to become a part of the "art of gathering information," internet enables more people to voice their thoughts and opinions to many, and with so advanced technology many can produce and enjoy art through the comfort of their own computer. Garageband has enabled those who didn't have access to a recording studio before to now have the same opportunity. New media may be "geared toward" the public, but does that just mean there simply are a greater amount of individuals who appreciate the same things? And maybe new media is geared toward the public, but I argue that it also aids the individual to further pursue things not accessible to them before such technological advances.
McLuhan offers a perspective we have previously not studied yet in regards to new media, the economic perspective. McLuhan introduces the rather basic economic principle of supply and demand. Whatever the masses demand industry must supply and this is crucial when it comes to new media. The key, though, to media is that even though it is produced for mass distribution it works to be highly specialized to our individual needs. “For the popular press offers no single vision, no point of view, but a mosaic of the postures of the collective consciousness.” It is the industries job to meld together all of our interests and make them into items that will please the “collective consciousness”.
McLuhan stated “In the great age of mass production of commodities, and of literature as a commodity for the market, it became necessary to study the consumer’s experience. In a word, it became necessary to study the effect of art and literature before producing anything at all.” I think this statement has become quite true over the years. And that now, more than ever, success of a new media depends on the market economy.
I am quite certain that technologies and other forms of new media today are developed to appeal to the masses. For one thing, and I think this has been the case throughout history, new technologies and their development is expensive. It is likely true as well that these technologies require the approval of the masses to become even remotely successful. As such, if these products don’t appeal to the masses those responsible for introducing them are going to be in serious trouble, largely financially, but also reputably. So it makes complete sense that developers would work toward this goal.
I believe that this in an important connection and the shift to a market society deeply impacted the world of art, in all of its forms. Art was no longer something commissioned individually for a specific patron, but something that could be mass distributed using the evolving production techniques. As such, artists had to consider trying to appeal to people as a whole instead of pleasing the person paying their bills. As such, I believe art had to dig deeper and find more material that connects the human race together as opposed to pleasing a select group of people.
In order for an artist to be successful in introducing new media to the public, the new media truly needs to appeal to the public. It will not be able to flourish and remain in the mainstream if it is only geared toward certain individuals. As McLuhan quoted, "My consumers are they not my producers?"(pg. 202). This creates a challenge for artists, as they have to create new media that appeals to the majority of the public.
My opinion is that new media does not need to be released to "the public rather than to an individual patron." In order for new media to spread and diffuse throughout an area, it needs to wind up in the hands of opinion leaders. They are the people who will influence everyone else to adopt that form of media.
If one were to map the trajectory of the diffusion of a certain type of media, I hypothesize that the data would back up my belief. That is, new media is adopted by opinion leaders, who then propel the spread of the new media to everyone else.
P.S. Sorry I didn't discuss/tie back to McLuhan, but you wanted my opinion...that's it!
I've found that as I peruse the comments on this post, that many agree with McLuhan's perception of new media in a market society caters to a mass amount of people; although I agree that this is apparent in our society--some have mentioned that the development of new technologies such as touch-screen phones and the like. However, as I thought more about new forms of media (I'm loosely defining the term; a new commodity is new media in this regard), I noticed a paradoxical trend. Companies such as Nike allow people to customize a product--their shoes-- that has been traditionally mass-produced. Is this an ironic appeal to the masses? If not, then how should this trend be defined?
McLuhan stated that “as market society defined itself, literature moved into the role of consumer commodity. The public became the patron.”(200) Personally, I believe the reason for that is mass culture can predict the trend of new media. Media updates according to the interests of the mass, but not the individual. In a free market, sales depends on if the majority of a society approve the product. Marketing department in the companies have to do research to know what the interests of the majority in a society are in order to meet their need and therefore make profits. The same as new media, the way to attract people’s attention and become a popular media is to satisfy what the most people want. However, the interest of individual cannot represent that of a society as a whole.
As many other students have stated in this blog, a market economy relies on the consumption of commodities that are competing in order to get consumers to buy them. In this kind of capitalistic society, it is impossible to make things (even art and media) not a commodity. There is a definite correlation between the market economy and consumption of art and mass media by the public as opposed to individuals. McLuhan notes that "the poets and artists moved towards the idea of impersonal process in art production in proportion as they berated the new masses for impersonal process in the consumption of art products." I think that this impersonalization of art, while necessary to compete in a free market economy, really takes away from the essence of art: that is to be individual and beautiful in its own respect. I agree with McLuhan that this interdependence of the market society and impersonal art is "handing art over to the unconscious quite gratuitously."
I agree with Laura S.' statement that artists now face the challenge of creating "new media that appeals to the majority of the public." In my opinion, this defeats the purpose of artistic expression. I understand the need to compete in a market society, however, art for the sake of art seems to be dissipating.
I agree with McLuhan about new media being marketed to the public, not just one patron. In order for the product being marketed to be profitable, the masses must support it by being willing to pay to get it. But it gets a little tricky from a advertising and marketing perspective. In order to sell a product and make money off that product, people need to want to buy it. What society deems as "cool" is a huge factor in determining the success of said product. McLuhan also talked about the profound effect new media can have on people; changing their perspective on what is "cool and new". So there seems to be an exchange between a new product deciding what is the next big thing, but also society creating the right atmosphere for the product to be successful and supporting it. One person is not able to promote "the next big thing", even if they have a great influence on society. Like commercials today, Beyonce (or some other celebrity) is not going to dramatically impact my life plans and influence me to buy a Nintendo DS or something. Their endorsement may influence someone who was on the fence about buying that product, but now a days, celebrity endorsement doesn't make the product more appealing, it makes the product more noticeable, which doesn't necessarily influence how people will buy that new media product.
(This reading was a little hard to follow, so my thoughts may be vaguely incoherent. Sorry!)
Generally, I agree with this statement that “public became patron” (200). As has been mentioned many times before in the comments, it is necessary for something to appeal to many people to sell, and has to sell to many people to be a successful venture. Therefore, in economic terms, art has to appeal to the masses to be worth it. Art has “reversed its role from guide for perception into convenient amenity or package” (200), demonstrated by the massive production of things like movies, or, as McLuhan mentioned, novels.
What the novel offered was “equally a homogenized body of common experience” (199). This concept is very important because it brings to the foreground the concept of ‘universality.’ Anyone who has studied literature should recognize this term. Often, the reason a book is considered ‘timeless’ is because it is universal. That is, people can relate to it, regardless of the time period in which they are reading it. He mentioned that people are now making connections with the books they read, connecting realistically instead of fantastically.
McLuhan goes further to state that “the vision will be tribal and collective” (197). Indeed, media began to appeal to the people as a whole, and studying the “consumer’s experience” (201) to anticipate the effect of the art became commonplace. This is where the small objection comes in. If all media appealed to the masses, then wouldn’t everyone have the same things because we are all being appealed to? No, because there is still the “private and marketable expression” (197). Not everyone loves romance novels, so those sell to a mass, but not THE mass. As a result, there is still the attempt to sell to individuals.
Media of any kind relies on the public to make it popular and to make it known. Because of that, I think new media needs public interest and hype to give it the title of new media. New media has become popular in the past because of mass advertisement or even mass hype about it. Without it, it is lost with other unpopular media that slides away into the past. While we love to individualize things and say things are unique and therefore interesting, creators of new media know that this is untrue. For new media to be known and to be sold (the ultimate goal) it must be produced, advertised, and distributed to the masses- this creates success. While art and media are supposed to have their own purposes, at the end of the day, we just want to sell it and popularize it. Producers of media rely on this to live. They do not spread information about it because it is merely interesting! Media is created to benefit the public, not the patron or individual. Just because one person uses a piece of new media doesn't mean it is a success, it might even constitute a failure!
For the most part I agree with the posts before mine on the connection between a market society and the introduction of new media to the public as a whole. The correlation is pretty clear: in a capitalistic economy, a product is going to be created with the masses in mind. Avarice, and maybe other undesirable feelings, are what drive the innovations or the new media we see today. Cellphones with internet, iPods that are the size of a half-dollar, touch screen anythings---humans do not need these upgrades, but we tend to enjoy anything that allows us to exert less physical or mental energy. But new media and technology will continue to evolve and develop because companies know what the majority of people want and will pay for. In an attempt to argue with myself, I was trying to think of a product that is created more so for the individual, or a group, or a minority as opposed to the general public. My mind drifted to the magazine section in a bookstore. True, there are publications like Time magazine or People magazine that are created for the average Joe, but if you look a little deeper in those magazine racks you will come across publications for tattoo enthusiasts, for people who own exotic cats, for those who enjoy anything vampire-related (I kid you not, it's titled Bite Me). Whatever your fetish may be, you can probably bet there is a magazine out there made for a quirky person like yourself. Granted, these publications are not directed at just one individual, but at a group, and one that is large enough to bring revenue back to the creators. But still, I wouldn't say that the masses are in general tattooed, vampiric Siamese cat lovers. One other point I would like to make is against Heck Yes's statement: "One person is not able to promote 'the next big thing,' even if they have a great influence on society." I agree that a celebrity is not the defining factor in whether a not a product is successful, but I do believe individuals decide what is "cool" in the world of fashion. The clothing that you see in any department store is mass produced for a reason (to reach the masses, they are the largest group of consumers). However, the designs of mass produced clothing are influenced by what goes down the runway--couture pieces that are created by individuals, inspired by individuals (often celebrities) and tailored for individuals, or a small group of people (those of us who are 6 foot, rail thin, and can afford a $600 t-shirt). So Heck Yes's statement may apply to most markets, but I believe there is an exception with fashion.
In "The Galaxy Reconfigured," McLuhan refers frequently to his idea of "altering perception and sense ratios" (198). He discusses how when a community materializes, usually in a technological form, any mental function, there occurs a shift in thought and in sense ratios. He goes on to say that "when sense ratios change, men change" (194). Thus, technological advancements have a profound impact on the community as a whole, and alter the way that the entire community is thinking and not just the way that one man thinks. This magnified impact on the public results from the interconnectedness of today's society. McLuhan claims that "a market economy 'can exist only in a market society'" (198). So if what Polanyi says about a market economy, that it "must comprise all elements of industry," is applied to our "market society," then it can be concluded that our society is similar to a large business in that all of its components affect, and are affected by, one another (198). Thus, the impact of new media has little to do with the individual and much more to do with how it alters the thought processes of the general public. Also, in order for newer forms of media to develop, the shift in "sense ratios" must occur in a large portion of the population because otherwise there wouldn't be enough interest in and pressure towards advancement. Finally, in such an interconnected market society as ours, the individual is greatly overshadowed by the power that resides in numbers, so essentially all innovations, not just those in new media, rely on how the majority of people respond to the change and how they use the new medium. In a society where the power rests in the people as a collective group, it only makes sense that new media be introduced to the public rather than to an individual patron.
I believe that if new media is made to benefit and be accessible to many different types of people, there will be an increase in knowledge that knows no social or economical boundaries. Everyone will benefit from each other’s experiences and questions and the world will seem more manageable than ever. As with any product, I believe introducing it to the public rather than to an individual patron is a much wiser decision. To answer this question in the reading, McLuhan turns to Adam Smith’s belief that “the individual is no longer to direct individual perception and judgment but to explore and to communicate the massive unconsciousness of collective man” (196). I interpreted this belief to mean that it is no longer “every man for himself” in society, but that every person will benefit more fully if we all share our knowledge with one another in an attempt to better understand humankind. McLuhan says that Smith “does seem to sense that the intellectual is to tap the collective consciousness of ‘the vast multitudes that labour’.” I believe it should be a mass effort to share all of our individual experiences with one another to best learn about the world and everything it has to offer. The only problem McLuhan seems to sense here is that the individual's sense of liberty and personal culture might be threatened in an age of "mass-culture" (197).
This portion of the reading was really interesting to me, as I'm very interested in economics. As has been mentioned repeatedly throughout these posts, corporations must target all of society with their product in order to succeed in a dog eat dog market world.
New media has the tendency to spread like wildfire when introduced to the public. Nearly everyone and their mother owns an iPod nowadays. In the same vein, if I made a mp3 player, let's call it the jPod, and gave it to a friend and told him to spread the word for everyone to buy it, it would fall flat on its butt. After all, no one has heard of the jPod! Plus the iPod has flashy commercials on every 2 seconds.
Before mentioning the introduction of new media to the public rather than to an individual person, McLuhan speaks of a dilemma, or "the problem of individual culture and liberty in an age of mass-culture." McLuhan expounds on the dilemma in later sentences: "Western man knows that his values and modalities are the product of literacy. Yet the very means of extending those values, technologically, seem to deny and reverse them." One of McLuhan's solutions for the problem is the introduction of new electric technology, "for the electric puts the mythic or collective dimension of human experience fully into the conscious wake-a-day world." So, if this problem really does exist, the introduction of new media to the public rather than to the individual, according to McLuhan, will solve it. But does this problem really exist in today's society? Are our values a product of mass-culture? And, if so, does the widespread use of technology assist in diminishing our so-called mutual identities, cultures, and values?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe connection between a market society and the introduction to new media in terms of “mass-culture” seems to be something that can help one look into the future of new media. “It became necessary,” he says, “to examine the effect of art and literature before producing anything at all.” With that, he points out that our “mass culture” drives new media. If something isn’t up to par, it’s not going to find a place in our market. If something was just introduced to the individual, success with the new medium may not be as successful. Going back to our earlier readings about new media becoming more specialized, McLuhan also makes an interesting statement saying “The market was specializing the artist.” In other words, based on where the market was headed, artists, in this case, had to appeal to the market for success by specializing in certain areas so as to not overlap. Though McLuhan just focuses on a market society, how much do you think the introduction of new media would be hindered, if at all, in another system?
ReplyDelete-Nathan
If a form of new media is going to be successful in a market economy, it can't be introduced simply to one person; it must be introduced and appeal to the public. That is the whole point of market economy: people decide what to sell, what to buy, what is popular, etc. Therefore, artists, novelists, and people who make computer programs and other forms of new media have to "study the effect of [their] art" (200) and, from observing these effects, have to change whatever they are producing to meet the needs of the consumers.
ReplyDeleteIn a market economy, and more specifically a capitalistic society, many things (even those that are essential in order to survive), such as food, shelter, healthcare, and even medicine are all made into commodities. New media and art is no exception. (A commodity is something that is mass-produced with the philosophy that it could be sold for monetary value--essentially it is sold with profit on the mind). In the sense that new media is always evolving according to what the public would want, with new innovations following along the lines of the results of polls, it IS catered to the "public" rather than the individual tastes. Whatever brings most profit in a capitalistic society is usually what the manufacturers go with. Not only that, but in order to make a living, new media artists must somehow cater their art to other people's tastes to make money. So for the most part, I would have to say that I agree.
ReplyDelete-Jennifer Ly Pham
I believe this change occurred when art transformed from a perception guide to a convenient amenity or package. Art became the new style of computer or a new i-pod. Art was not only used to help people think anymore, it became a substance that was essential to human order and happiness. Because of the development of a market society, new media was able to emerge. With the market economy, people are able to spend their money how they choose. When they see some form of media that they want, they can feel free to buy it. Also because there are more people to supply for, the demand becomes greater and developments become necessary. In order to keep the masses happy, new models are essential. It was stated that, “My consumers, are they not my producers?” This is true because the new media that is invented is because of demand from the public.
ReplyDeleteMcLuhan writes about past new medias and how in the eighteenth century, art and literature made a transition into a role of consumer commodity. I think this is completely relatable to new medias today. In a market society, the individual is a pittance compared to the potentials of the mass public. The forms of new media that have lasted have been those who have gained the most popularity in a timely fashion, and more importantly, those who made the most profit. These kinds of new media depend on the mass media to continue on their legacy. The important connection of new media in a market society with the mass media rather than the individual lies in whether or not the new media has made the transition into pubic commodity. McLuhan later mentions the importance of these transitions and how intriguing they are to study. I agree with the author, I believe that something in the new media has to "tip" in the mass public in order for it to be recognized for what it is.
ReplyDeleteSarah K.
The personalization of the computer is a natural step in a society based on equality, such as ours. even though, in the beginning, the personal computer was something that few if any could have foreseen, it was obvious even in Licklider's writings that widespread access to computers would be necessary in the future (i.e. the present), even though he thought this would come in the form of big computers being shared between many people. looking at history, all medias started in the hands of the rich and privileged and eventually either disappeared or trickled down to the peasantry. a great example of this is writing. In ancient Greece, the rich taught their children to write, while the lower classes had no knowledge of (nor need for) writing. by the dark ages, the nobility could often write, but seldom took the time to do so, relying on scribes to do their writing. Writing for the middle class only became mainstream in the renaissance, and even as recently as 60 years ago it was still common for poor farmers to be illiterate. This trend of knowledge being for the upper class is seldom (though occasionally) something prescribed by law, but rather because the poor have no need to know it. The fact that the computer has become something available to all is not due to the generosity of the computer manufacturers or the computer retailers but because of the computer's status as part of the foundation of our modern society.
ReplyDeleteI hate to simply re-state what others have previously said, but I agree with them 100 percent. A market economy relies on people as a society, rather than individuals, to make products sell. Introducing a product to an individual helps to get an idea of what people might want in developmental stages, but in order for anything to be successful a majority has to accept that form of new media (art, technology etc.).
ReplyDeleteIn the readings, it was stated that new media is "an extension of man", and as a result, society. The statement implies that new media constantly adapts to what the public wants right now, and the days following. In order to be successful a product must satisfy the masses. I don't see any other way around it.
Living in the market society that we do, new technology is constantly being developed with the masses in mind. The main goal of large companies is to develop that one product that is always one step ahead of the rest of the products already on the market. Almost every aspect of the technology market is highly competitive which motivates companies to develop only the newest and best products and make them available to the masses. The need for new products pushes the need for new media. The introduction to new media to an individual patron rather than the masses would decrease motivation, profit, and competition, all things that essentially drive the market society.
ReplyDeleteMcLuhan says, “it is necessary to understand the power and thrust of technologies to isolate the senses and thus to hypnotize society” Every time a new media is introduced the public seems to be fixated on it, some even become addicted to it. For example, once the iPod hit the market, an insane amount of people went out to buy the “latest craze”. Our society is so materialistic that once a new product emerges that trumps the rest; it does extremely well in the market because the public “needs” to have it.
In this day and age, media that is projected into society targets the masses instead of individuals because those who control the media do it with a purpose in mind whether it be to make money or to promote ideas. Not so often anymore do those who utilize the media intend to display their works with artistic innovations in mind. For those who want money and power, they need to successfully capture the attentions of as many people as possible to accomplish their goals. Whatever doesn't appeal to the masses will be shot down no matter how much individuals may support the work. In the end, the individuals cannot win against the masses.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, introducing new media to an individual first is very beneficial. Those who create media do not necessarily know how to advertise their media. When shown to the correct individual first, the media can then be shown to a wider audience and with more credibility. Namely, say a small, privately owned company creates a new technology. Since they are not affiliated with any sort of company or organization, they have no any credibility. If they tried to distribute said technology, no one would pay any attention to it. However, if they instead took it to someone of credibility or status, someone who has the public's eye, who then distributed it to the public with their approval on it, then the technology would have a chance. Granted, the individual-first approach isn't necessary, it is just, in the right situation, very, very useful in accelerating the spread of new media. In concordance with what my colleagues have said before, it is the masses that really sell the media. ("My consumers are they not my producers?" [p. 202]) However, without the individual, sometimes the media won't even make it to the masses.
ReplyDelete--Julia--
McLuhan talks about a "massive psychic chiasmus" as being a reversal of thought upon new trends. I thought, though it was an interesting choice of words, that he might just be correct. In a market economy products are generally released to the public in massive amounts making new media readily available to almost everybody. Because a new media can become available to a lot of people overnight, it can influence a strong new trend or "massive psychic chiasmus". This brought to mind flip phones. Cellphones had been around for awhile, but because of the publicity and almost instant popularity, flip phones became the new must-have. This trend took hold of so many so fast because of a wide distribution. If flip phones had been introduced on a more personal level, I am not sure they would have taken such a hold.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting to think about new media as a something that targets masses rather than individuals. Throughout history, many of the world's greatest works of art were commissioned and paid for by individuals. It is relatively recent that art, literature, and music have come to belong more to the public than to any particular individual.
ReplyDeleteThough it may have been less feasible in the past, works of art were very rarely reproduced on the scale of what we see today. Considering the Internet as new media, it seems possible that new media is helping the masses overtake the role of the individual in modern society -- Wikipedia is a fine example of this. Where before it was the responsibility of an individual (or a company, more likely) to gather the information required to build an encyclopedia, we now rely on the collective knowledge of a great number of people.
Mcluhan discusses market socities and the importance of having the consent of the mass rather than the individual. I agree with this statement although I think Julia took an interesting route on explaining the significance of the individual. However, on another note, new media is centered on impressing the masses, rather than the individual. For example, Mcluhan states, "the future will be a larger or greatly improved version of the immediate past." (199) New media centers around this statement, for the most part. Once something is invented such as the cell phone, a new version continues to develop from the older version. Now cell phones have music, touch screens, and other gadgets. Inventors of new media see what the masses enjoy and thrive with and then later on develop newer objects based on what they think the majority of the people will like.
ReplyDelete-Allison R.
To form a mass amount of people you need many individuals. The public's needs and wants are what drive artists it seems many of you are saying, but is new media spurring that on? Wikipedia enables more individuals to become a part of the "art of gathering information," internet enables more people to voice their thoughts and opinions to many, and with so advanced technology many can produce and enjoy art through the comfort of their own computer. Garageband has enabled those who didn't have access to a recording studio before to now have the same opportunity. New media may be "geared toward" the public, but does that just mean there simply are a greater amount of individuals who appreciate the same things? And maybe new media is geared toward the public, but I argue that it also aids the individual to further pursue things not accessible to them before such technological advances.
ReplyDeleteMcLuhan offers a perspective we have previously not studied yet in regards to new media, the economic perspective. McLuhan introduces the rather basic economic principle of supply and demand. Whatever the masses demand industry must supply and this is crucial when it comes to new media. The key, though, to media is that even though it is produced for mass distribution it works to be highly specialized to our individual needs. “For the popular press offers no single vision, no point of view, but a mosaic of the postures of the collective consciousness.” It is the industries job to meld together all of our interests and make them into items that will please the “collective consciousness”.
ReplyDeleteMcLuhan stated “In the great age of mass production of commodities, and of literature as a commodity for the market, it became necessary to study the consumer’s experience. In a word, it became necessary to study the effect of art and literature before producing anything at all.” I think this statement has become quite true over the years. And that now, more than ever, success of a new media depends on the market economy.
ReplyDeleteI am quite certain that technologies and other forms of new media today are developed to appeal to the masses. For one thing, and I think this has been the case throughout history, new technologies and their development is expensive. It is likely true as well that these technologies require the approval of the masses to become even remotely successful. As such, if these products don’t appeal to the masses those responsible for introducing them are going to be in serious trouble, largely financially, but also reputably. So it makes complete sense that developers would work toward this goal.
-Markleigh
I believe that this in an important connection and the shift to a market society deeply impacted the world of art, in all of its forms. Art was no longer something commissioned individually for a specific patron, but something that could be mass distributed using the evolving production techniques. As such, artists had to consider trying to appeal to people as a whole instead of pleasing the person paying their bills. As such, I believe art had to dig deeper and find more material that connects the human race together as opposed to pleasing a select group of people.
ReplyDeleteIn order for an artist to be successful in introducing new media to the public, the new media truly needs to appeal to the public. It will not be able to flourish and remain in the mainstream if it is only geared toward certain individuals. As McLuhan quoted, "My consumers are they not my producers?"(pg. 202). This creates a challenge for artists, as they have to create new media that appeals to the majority of the public.
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is that new media does not need to be released to "the public rather than to an individual patron." In order for new media to spread and diffuse throughout an area, it needs to wind up in the hands of opinion leaders. They are the people who will influence everyone else to adopt that form of media.
ReplyDeleteIf one were to map the trajectory of the diffusion of a certain type of media, I hypothesize that the data would back up my belief. That is, new media is adopted by opinion leaders, who then propel the spread of the new media to everyone else.
P.S. Sorry I didn't discuss/tie back to McLuhan, but you wanted my opinion...that's it!
I've found that as I peruse the comments on this post, that many agree with McLuhan's perception of new media in a market society caters to a mass amount of people; although I agree that this is apparent in our society--some have mentioned that the development of new technologies such as touch-screen phones and the like. However, as I thought more about new forms of media (I'm loosely defining the term; a new commodity is new media in this regard), I noticed a paradoxical trend. Companies such as Nike allow people to customize a product--their shoes-- that has been traditionally mass-produced. Is this an ironic appeal to the masses? If not, then how should this trend be defined?
ReplyDeleteMcLuhan stated that “as market society defined itself, literature moved into the role of consumer commodity. The public became the patron.”(200) Personally, I believe the reason for that is mass culture can predict the trend of new media. Media updates according to the interests of the mass, but not the individual. In a free market, sales depends on if the majority of a society approve the product. Marketing department in the companies have to do research to know what the interests of the majority in a society are in order to meet their need and therefore make profits. The same as new media, the way to attract people’s attention and become a popular media is to satisfy what the most people want. However, the interest of individual cannot represent that of a society as a whole.
ReplyDelete-Duoduo
As many other students have stated in this blog, a market economy relies on the consumption of commodities that are competing in order to get consumers to buy them. In this kind of capitalistic society, it is impossible to make things (even art and media) not a commodity. There is a definite correlation between the market economy and consumption of art and mass media by the public as opposed to individuals. McLuhan notes that "the poets and artists moved towards the idea of impersonal process in art production in proportion as they berated the new masses for impersonal process in the consumption of art products." I think that this impersonalization of art, while necessary to compete in a free market economy, really takes away from the essence of art: that is to be individual and beautiful in its own respect. I agree with McLuhan that this interdependence of the market society and impersonal art is "handing art over to the unconscious quite gratuitously."
ReplyDeleteI agree with Laura S.' statement that artists now face the challenge of creating "new media that appeals to the majority of the public." In my opinion, this defeats the purpose of artistic expression. I understand the need to compete in a market society, however, art for the sake of art seems to be dissipating.
I agree with McLuhan about new media being marketed to the public, not just one patron. In order for the product being marketed to be profitable, the masses must support it by being willing to pay to get it. But it gets a little tricky from a advertising and marketing perspective. In order to sell a product and make money off that product, people need to want to buy it. What society deems as "cool" is a huge factor in determining the success of said product. McLuhan also talked about the profound effect new media can have on people; changing their perspective on what is "cool and new". So there seems to be an exchange between a new product deciding what is the next big thing, but also society creating the right atmosphere for the product to be successful and supporting it.
ReplyDeleteOne person is not able to promote "the next big thing", even if they have a great influence on society. Like commercials today, Beyonce (or some other celebrity) is not going to dramatically impact my life plans and influence me to buy a Nintendo DS or something. Their endorsement may influence someone who was on the fence about buying that product, but now a days, celebrity endorsement doesn't make the product more appealing, it makes the product more noticeable, which doesn't necessarily influence how people will buy that new media product.
(This reading was a little hard to follow, so my thoughts may be vaguely incoherent. Sorry!)
ReplyDeleteGenerally, I agree with this statement that “public became patron” (200). As has been mentioned many times before in the comments, it is necessary for something to appeal to many people to sell, and has to sell to many people to be a successful venture. Therefore, in economic terms, art has to appeal to the masses to be worth it. Art has “reversed its role from guide for perception into convenient amenity or package” (200), demonstrated by the massive production of things like movies, or, as McLuhan mentioned, novels.
What the novel offered was “equally a homogenized body of common experience” (199). This concept is very important because it brings to the foreground the concept of ‘universality.’
Anyone who has studied literature should recognize this term. Often, the reason a book is considered ‘timeless’ is because it is universal. That is, people can relate to it, regardless of the time period in which they are reading it. He mentioned that people are now making connections with the books they read, connecting realistically instead of fantastically.
McLuhan goes further to state that “the vision will be tribal and collective” (197). Indeed, media began to appeal to the people as a whole, and studying the “consumer’s experience” (201) to anticipate the effect of the art became commonplace. This is where the small objection comes in. If all media appealed to the masses, then wouldn’t everyone have the same things because we are all being appealed to? No, because there is still the “private and marketable expression” (197). Not everyone loves romance novels, so those sell to a mass, but not THE mass. As a result, there is still the attempt to sell to individuals.
Media of any kind relies on the public to make it popular and to make it known. Because of that, I think new media needs public interest and hype to give it the title of new media. New media has become popular in the past because of mass advertisement or even mass hype about it. Without it, it is lost with other unpopular media that slides away into the past. While we love to individualize things and say things are unique and therefore interesting, creators of new media know that this is untrue. For new media to be known and to be sold (the ultimate goal) it must be produced, advertised, and distributed to the masses- this creates success. While art and media are supposed to have their own purposes, at the end of the day, we just want to sell it and popularize it. Producers of media rely on this to live. They do not spread information about it because it is merely interesting!
ReplyDeleteMedia is created to benefit the public, not the patron or individual. Just because one person uses a piece of new media doesn't mean it is a success, it might even constitute a failure!
For the most part I agree with the posts before mine on the connection between a market society and the introduction of new media to the public as a whole. The correlation is pretty clear: in a capitalistic economy, a product is going to be created with the masses in mind. Avarice, and maybe other undesirable feelings, are what drive the innovations or the new media we see today. Cellphones with internet, iPods that are the size of a half-dollar, touch screen anythings---humans do not need these upgrades, but we tend to enjoy anything that allows us to exert less physical or mental energy. But new media and technology will continue to evolve and develop because companies know what the majority of people want and will pay for.
ReplyDeleteIn an attempt to argue with myself, I was trying to think of a product that is created more so for the individual, or a group, or a minority as opposed to the general public. My mind drifted to the magazine section in a bookstore. True, there are publications like Time magazine or People magazine that are created for the average Joe, but if you look a little deeper in those magazine racks you will come across publications for tattoo enthusiasts, for people who own exotic cats, for those who enjoy anything vampire-related (I kid you not, it's titled Bite Me). Whatever your fetish may be, you can probably bet there is a magazine out there made for a quirky person like yourself. Granted, these publications are not directed at just one individual, but at a group, and one that is large enough to bring revenue back to the creators. But still, I wouldn't say that the masses are in general tattooed, vampiric Siamese cat lovers.
One other point I would like to make is against Heck Yes's statement: "One person is not able to promote 'the next big thing,' even if they have a great influence on society." I agree that a celebrity is not the defining factor in whether a not a product is successful, but I do believe individuals decide what is "cool" in the world of fashion. The clothing that you see in any department store is mass produced for a reason (to reach the masses, they are the largest group of consumers). However, the designs of mass produced clothing are influenced by what goes down the runway--couture pieces that are created by individuals, inspired by individuals (often celebrities) and tailored for individuals, or a small group of people (those of us who are 6 foot, rail thin, and can afford a $600 t-shirt). So Heck Yes's statement may apply to most markets, but I believe there is an exception with fashion.
In "The Galaxy Reconfigured," McLuhan refers frequently to his idea of "altering perception and sense ratios" (198). He discusses how when a community materializes, usually in a technological form, any mental function, there occurs a shift in thought and in sense ratios. He goes on to say that "when sense ratios change, men change" (194). Thus, technological advancements have a profound impact on the community as a whole, and alter the way that the entire community is thinking and not just the way that one man thinks. This magnified impact on the public results from the interconnectedness of today's society. McLuhan claims that "a market economy 'can exist only in a market society'" (198). So if what Polanyi says about a market economy, that it "must comprise all elements of industry," is applied to our "market society," then it can be concluded that our society is similar to a large business in that all of its components affect, and are affected by, one another (198). Thus, the impact of new media has little to do with the individual and much more to do with how it alters the thought processes of the general public. Also, in order for newer forms of media to develop, the shift in "sense ratios" must occur in a large portion of the population because otherwise there wouldn't be enough interest in and pressure towards advancement. Finally, in such an interconnected market society as ours, the individual is greatly overshadowed by the power that resides in numbers, so essentially all innovations, not just those in new media, rely on how the majority of people respond to the change and how they use the new medium. In a society where the power rests in the people as a collective group, it only makes sense that new media be introduced to the public rather than to an individual patron.
ReplyDeleteI believe that if new media is made to benefit and be accessible to many different types of people, there will be an increase in knowledge that knows no social or economical boundaries. Everyone will benefit from each other’s experiences and questions and the world will seem more manageable than ever. As with any product, I believe introducing it to the public rather than to an individual patron is a much wiser decision.
ReplyDeleteTo answer this question in the reading, McLuhan turns to Adam Smith’s belief that “the individual is no longer to direct individual perception and judgment but to explore and to communicate the massive unconsciousness of collective man” (196). I interpreted this belief to mean that it is no longer “every man for himself” in society, but that every person will benefit more fully if we all share our knowledge with one another in an attempt to better understand humankind. McLuhan says that Smith “does seem to sense that the intellectual is to tap the collective consciousness of ‘the vast multitudes that labour’.” I believe it should be a mass effort to share all of our individual experiences with one another to best learn about the world and everything it has to offer. The only problem McLuhan seems to sense here is that the individual's sense of liberty and personal culture might be threatened in an age of "mass-culture" (197).
This portion of the reading was really interesting to me, as I'm very interested in economics. As has been mentioned repeatedly throughout these posts, corporations must target all of society with their product in order to succeed in a dog eat dog market world.
ReplyDeleteNew media has the tendency to spread like wildfire when introduced to the public. Nearly everyone and their mother owns an iPod nowadays. In the same vein, if I made a mp3 player, let's call it the jPod, and gave it to a friend and told him to spread the word for everyone to buy it, it would fall flat on its butt. After all, no one has heard of the jPod! Plus the iPod has flashy commercials on every 2 seconds.