Final Thoughts

Communication and technology link together in an endless cycle of questions that cannot be answered. Some of the most prominent questions include whether or not there are such things as new forms of technology or if they are just a connection to previous technologies in history. Also, questions arise if new advancements transmit good or bad outcomes and have a positive or negative effect on the world and the people that use them. Regardless, society is shaped by the use of technology, however it is defined. In general, almost all forms of communication, whether digital or not, link together throughout history and have some effect how users live their life. The real question still remains “what is new technology?” Answering this only leads to questions of if something is “new” what makes it “new” and if there is a right or wrong answer instead of theories?

Studies of media forms all revolve around the central concept of new technologies effecting aspects of life in a culturally significant way. They in turn effect themselves and the direction communication goes in by creating means of uses. Lister explained, “there is no single order in which a texted must be encountered” meaning a new technology becomes new by how we use it and users define what something is used for (Lister et. al. 27). As radio allowed for television and television allowed for computers and the Internet, the cycle continues today as each platform for communication links together in some way. New advancements are created as extensions of the old and are generally thought to make things easier than the previous. With new forms comes new ways of using them and needs for their use. Deciphering whether or not something is new or just a different way of looking at the old leaves people questioning new media and how it plays into shaping society.

Media forms such as the Internet and websites have radically changed what is important for a culture and how such things as business are conducted as a result. The present lifestyle praises the latest versions and creates different ideals for people all while using the same communication concepts like broadcasting television, a library card catalogue, and a phone that were once “new.” Their focus encompasses the idea of recreating and manipulating as if being “born out of the previous” to advance communication (Lister et. al. 47) . As a result, the term “new media technologies” defines recreations that are really not new concepts but more productive uses of the old.

Life and the culture of today are rich in the idea of taking the old and making it something “new.” Since the birth of the internet and web sites such as youtube or flickr, artists and the communication platforms they use are commonplace for redoing as if new. Such “new” ways of looking at videos on youtube revolve around the main concepts of public broadcasting and videos in general. What makes them new for today is the way they are produced, the platform they are presented to people on and their cultural significance. Other things such as mash up music are considered new technologies and communication forms because the content as a whole is changed; therefore, “the scale of the changes” reflects its meanings and significance brought on by manipulated content (Lister et. al. 201).

Even through the ideas of torrents, copyrights and new content raises questions of what makes something new and genuine if it is a copy of a copy? What gives someone the right to call something “new” if the overall content is the exact same as the original? Why would “new” media technologies be considered “new” if their main idea and way of communicating is just an extension of an older concept in history?

To answer in short, the “newness” of technology is defined by how it fits into society and how it shapes it. There are still profound questions of if we didn’t have the technology at our disposal, would we still have the need for its use? Defining a technology as new should really imply some sort of advancement, good or bad, by the use of something unlike anything else in some way. New media will always come from some other idea, but will continue to push the human culture into new spaces and ideals. What makes them new is why it is important and how it molds the human race into an active “society” together.

links:
http://whatsnewmedia.org/

http://www.scienceray.com/Technology/Applied-Science/The-Effects-and-Influences-of-Technology-on-Society-and-Human-Kind.114891

New media and the politics of the economy

New media is mainly thought of as a positive influence on the human race and cultures of each nation. Because it allows for communities of people to come together regardless of time and space, information such as ideas of politics are thought to evoke “active engagement and dialogue” between users as opposed to mediated information forced on people (Lister et. al. 177). For example, political views and information regarding presidential candidates is open to the public, whereas before, mass media would only divulge specific information; however, the world wide web (once thought to solely be used for an academic purpose) is littered with an equal amount of advertising comparable to older media forms like newspapers or magazines.

The political aspect of online deals with whether or not the medium itself has created a space open to debates or if it is just a different way of being fed the same information. This calls into question its validity of being an active form that strays away from central control. Questions then arise of technologies (such as the internet) influence on the economy and whether or not it is truly setting people free from constraints or becoming one itself. 

After looking at the overall economic and political picture, new technologies are a definite part of a culture and bring about opportunities to voice opinions and economic change. But, with this change comes the cost of relinquishing freedom from unfiltered information. Take for example weblogs and chat rooms. Granted, there is much information that normally would not surface through other mass mediums, but the site itself is still littered with advertisements. Going along with them is their ability to control and monitor what is posted. This takes away from the concept of creating a public sphere open to everyone without control (Lister et. al. 180).

Moreover, this community does not encompass everyone. According to Lister, a public sphere must allow for “maximum access” to everyone (Lister et. al 180). In the big picture, accessing the internet is only done through a monetary standpoint. Computers are only accessible to people in wealthier areas. Having a computer costs money as well as paying for a monthly phone service to get online. Because of this, the “public sphere” means the wealthy “public sphere” and does not encompass everyone. Realistically, companies such as phone services and computer retailers own the internet. They make profit off it, and in turn are able to monitor what goes on sites, who uses it and so forth.

Thinking of it from an economic stance, the politics of online cover a much broader spectrum than just political policies and elections. It also forms the global economic cycle which makes the world go round. When an economy is hurting, new technologies are introduced. These new technologies create opportunities for business and jobs which boost an economy. After boosting the economy, the technologies also become the problem by taking over other businesses not up to date on online advancements. Just the sheer dependency on technology becomes a problem. This causes economies to fall once again only to wait for the cycle to start all over.

From a political viewpoint, being online and the internet can be thought of as positive. The medium allows for information to be transmitted that normally wouldn’t be by other mass mediums. Open debates can be formed which makes online communities. But, at what price must we pay for access to such luxuries? Who is actually in control of these communities? Is it fair to put a price tag on information and to allow mega companies to control the online political stance?

links
http://www.searchenginejournal.com/google-now-controls-69-of-online-advertising-market/6632/
http://www.slate.com/id/2131182/

Identity online and the internet self

While using the internet, the questions of self, community and global identity all come into play. Any user of the internet is able to display themselves in whatever ways they so choose. Because of this, questions arise as to whether an online identity and community can actually be considered legitimate? Also, credibility becomes a big question when answering, “Who are we when we are online?” (Lister 167).  

For a sense of self, one has to think in terms of what shapes an identity in general. Martin Lister explains that media forms are a part of “an active process of identity construction” where individuals display themselves due to how media technologies have shaped their lives (Lister 245). For example, the use of acronyms is now a common practice in normal language and used as expressions of youth an hip terminology. The computer has already shaped lives offline in such ways as speech, dress and emotion to the point where it becomes contradicting to be non-accepting of such a thing as online identity. Before the invention of the internet, people’s identities were always being influenced by means of media sources. Individuals would walk, talk and dress like what they saw or heard on television, radio and newspapers. What would be the difference in shaping of identity and how identity is expressed before as compared to how the internet shapes identities now?

For starters, a person must think about the concept of credibility and legitimacy. In the online world, self identity is only thought of from the typed word. Because there is no actual physical contact, there is no definite way of knowing the true identity of a person. An internet user may be chatting with someone online they believe to be a man because they claim to be one and in actuality be talking to a 10 year old girl. Similarly, Facebook profile pictures can display images of a person at their best and what they looked like 10 years ago as almost a false advertising of who they really are and what their physical appearance is presently. Lister raises the question of identity and community in a virtual and online world by asking, “Can communities be separate from physical location?” (Lister 173). If a person is who they are based on their actual identity, how can they be the same person online? Being online and having an identity there raises too many ‘what if’ questions.

On the other hand, the same could be thought of in a physical sense. How many people actually know a person and their true identity? What is the difference between when a person creates a profile online that leaves out details of their physical and personal identity and when a person in a physical world puts makeup on to cover up blemishes on their face? Both are a type of masking of a person; however, in the virtual world it can be done easier and to a greater extent.

Martin Lister and Henry Jenkins both see the virtual world and identities online as being one of questions. Is there such thing as a community or actual identity if there is no physical contact between individuals? Some think that an exchange of ideas is all that is needed to be part of a community. Others think that an identity can be expressed online the same way people try to shape their identities offline: by transforming oneself to be how they want to be. The difference in the real and virtual world identities and communities becomes one of ease. Is an online identity not legitimate because it is easier to recreate than an offline identity? As long as the physical and virtual worlds do not cross, there should be no problem.

links:

http://www.newsweek.com/id/147784

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9db52iX_Vds

Comics as an old media in history

Scott McCloud, author of Understanding Comics: The Invisible Art, defines the term comics as “juxtaposed pictorial and other images in deliberate sequence, and intended to convey information and/or produce an aesthetic” (McCloud 9). By this term, comics can extend back to the stone ages when cavemen used to draw pictures on rocks in order to explain something. Their basic concept is one of using individual frames and images that display a meaning of something.

Comics are not thought to typically be a standard media form, rather short, funny stories with no meaning. The questions arise where comics came from and are they an actual new media source? As already stated, the term comics is defined loosely to date back to when people first used any sort of image to display a meaning. From there, words and other pictures were added for more clarification and meaning. Comics have only recently been dissected and commercialized for viewing pleasure.

If it the case that comics date back to written communication, what makes them different from paintings or the written word? The answer is in how comics require their users to be interactive with them. In order for comics to convey a message, much interpretation is left to the reader, meaning a meaning is established from the reader. How things are defined and where stories are taken is a direct response to how the reader of a comic interprets what is displayed. McCloud talks about the world as a conceptual world and how people and their identities are merely ideas (McCloud 40). In this case, people are the direct result of how things are defined in a story and the story is told by their imaginations and guided by the comics. Meaning is established differently for every individual and it is on how they perceive the world around them. This goes hand in hand with Marshall McLuhans’ theory of media forms being extensions of our body by the stories being an extension of imaginations.

The debate still arises between McLuhan and Williams whether these new media forms are extensions of old media and whether it is the user that defines the media and not the media that affect the user. In the case of comics, it is both. Comics are an extension of older media forms. They also require readers for interpretation, therefore, their meaning and message is left to the reader. But how are comics considered a new for of media if they just encompass other communication forms?

Comics have created their own language that is an extension of other forms. Pictures now can be definitions rather than images. A simple smiley face represents a person or a face. Lines jutting out of a person’s back could mean a person is in motion. Just by the image alone, there is a sense of being and meaning established. Much of the interpretation is left to the reader, but these forms have become common knowledge and understood to most people. It is through the general understanding that a new media form and language has been created.

When dealing with comics as a whole, one must ask what type of language and media is being used in comics? There is verbal, nonverbal, pictoral and other forms of language all happening at the same time. Also, images and words are media forms that are being used. But the question still arises if comics can be considered part of media history?

Both Williams and McLuhan still become topics of debate when dealing with any form of communication. In the case of comics, readers affect the comic just as much as they affect the reader. In order to understand a comic, one must be familiar with old media forms (i.e. the written word and pictures, ect.) and what meanings they already have in order to create new meanings for the new media type. Either way, comics require a certain amount of imagination and understanding to convey a message. If it were not for a readers’ previous understanding of what words, pictures and other communication forms mean, would a comic even be a new form?

links:
http://www.dccomics.com/new_to_comics/
http://amazingmontage.tripod.com/mccloud.html

Mass media and its impact on culture and society

New media forms and technologies have centralized around the idea of community and culture. The question of whether these new creations help or hurt a community becomes the main argument. On one hand, media forms can be thought of as a way to control the masses while ruining authenticity and cultural traditions (Lister 69). On the other, new media (such as the internet) can be thought of as a way to free the masses and give them the right to choose the boundaries they have of gaining information and performing tasks. Regardless, new media forms do shape a culture and community.

This ultimately leads back to the question of whether or not “new media” is actually good. The latest versions of any media form are always thought of as being better than the previous. Each time a newer form is introduced, the thought that these forms will solve the questions a culture has or lead the masses to utopia is adopted. Every newer form is looked at in relation to the old and compared to how the culture used it previously. The question should be what significance do these media forms and their latest versions play in a community and culture? How will they change the culture for better or worse?

Ever since the creation of digital media, community members have been given the luxury of choice. Masses are now able to choose where their imaginations want to take them and can also create new worlds to explore. Lister reflects on the concept of new media forms being an extension of the imaginations of people (Lister 60). Moreover, the idea of newer technologies being better is then adapted. The newer technologies provide a path to the imaginations of people and are thought to have the answers. By creating newer forms, users are able to fulfill their desires and imaginations of striving toward their utopia.

This directly leads to the final question of how new media forms are created. Marshall McLuhan adapted the idea of media forms being extensions of the body as well as the medium being the message. Each of his theories were somewhat “if a tree falls in the woods and no one’s around, does it really make a sound” theories. Their main themes, along with Raymond Williams theories, were the relevance to this topic. The themes revolved around remediation and newer forms as improvements to older ways of communication (Lister 77). By this, books were just improvements to the sense of sight or internet encompassing all the senses much like the new ipods have been updated over the years to include touch screens for the physical aspect.

This brings us back to the concept of community and culture. With progression of newer media forms comes a change in the culture. But, can it be stated that the the media forms are the cause of change or is it how a society uses it that is the actual change? What makes these technologies actual advancements if how they are used is determined by the users themselves? Is a society and culture even shaped by media forms or are users doing the shaping and defining by how they use them?

links:
http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/mcluhan.html
http://www.users.zetnet.co.uk/amroth/scritti/williams.htm

Media and what makes it “New”

The term “new media” describes recent and innovative forms of communication that are presently available. “New media” can be generally thought of in today’s standards as using a computer or as referred to by Martin Lister in New Media: A Critical Introduction as ‘digital new media’ (Lister 14). From a modernist viewpoint, new in media forms has shifted from the physical analogue to the changeable digital forms. In each scenario, what defines old and new media forms is up for interpretation.

One main question is how to determine a separation of what are deemed old and new media forms? The expansion and creation of new mediums stems from their original connectedness. To try and give an exact time of when the old became old and the new became new would be setting an obscure date to an unknown point in time. Their history and reliance on one another make media forms an equal contributing factor to what is considered new; therefore, what is to say old media forms are not a part of the new. For instance, the use of the internet (digital new media) relies on the use of a phone line (old analogue) in order to run. As each relies on one another to work properly, one could assume that new media may simply be a continuation and improvement of an old form. If the internet would not be possible without a phone line, why would a phone be considered old media? Simply put, new media forms could be the new ways we configure the old forms. 

Being described as new also gives the assumption that the most recent is ultimately better than the old. This still raises questions of whether or not new media forms are an actual improvement to communication. Advancements in digital media are created to make tasks more efficient and easier by packaging multiple communication forms into an “all in one” form. Products like smartphones, ipods, and the internet itself are used to do multiple things by means of one medium. Each newer form focuses on amplifying the speed and amount of information available to make things easier. But does the efficiency and quality of information get lost in translation because there is too much going on at once? Who is to say what is credible if new media constantly changes and allows anyone to contribute to its content?   

“New media” now combines producers and consumers into one identity known by Lister as the ‘prosumer’ (Lister 33).  What has become different and a defining staple of  what “new media” is could be its user-friendly status  and how each user can contribute to the information it produces. In order to truly have “new media” would require a completely new approach, idea, and language. When the concepts of capturing images in a photograph or using a telephone to contact others came about, other ideas were then thought of to expand on the idea of capturing an image. With this said, are the days of actual new media gone until the next concept of mass communication is thought of?

links:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17740041/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_media

First Post

This is my first post on the first day of class. I am ready to get this blog going as soon as I buy the books and read.