ARTS3091 Advanced Media Issues Patrick Skinner

Science, media and culture are entangled in a complex ecology.  That’s what I took from this weeks lecture notes.  It seems that science has given life to new technology, and subsequently, new technology pushes science forward.  Science is the very thing which has driven our society to where it is and therefore effects all of us, but I wonder how many of us truly have an impact on science.  Really most of us are just along for the ride, because, either we’re not educated enough to understand it, or we just don’t have the time.  In today’s blog, I’m going to discuss how media has determined the state of science, why most of us know nothing about science, and how the internet could be the greatest thing that science ever did for itself.

The lecture materials for this week refer to Gerald Raunig, whose analysis of transversality discusses a relationship between art and politics.  He speaks of verticality and horizontality, which to my understanding are two different social structures, verticality being hierarchical, and horizontality being a less ordered structure.  In the lecture Andrew mentioned how these do not exist in a pure state, but rather, transversality basically creates complex social structures.  Now if I can relate these back to science, I think that all science has traditionally been highly ordered, but interestingly, the advancements that science has afforded us, are essentially working to undermine its own verticality, by increasing an understanding of science, and a participation in science at all levels of society, not just for a few academic elites.

But the issue of educating the average layperson on science is one where media is impacting and changing all the time.  The internet has obvious impacts on the distribution of information, but as argued by Wilbanks (2011), scientific publications have remained loyal to paper.  Although anyone can access journals online, expensive pay walls are likely to deter most.    We think of the internet as a tool for empowerment, yet it seems that science publishers are intent on keeping publications out of the hands of ordinary citizens, and only in the hands of scientists.  I would argue like many others that science should be considered commons; everyone’s information to consume as they like.  But most people’s understanding of science comes from a mediated explanation through either news media, or programs such as Catalyst on the ABC.  The trouble with this is that journalists always try to report unbiased, yet in doing so with science, they create a situation where definitive answers may be given less legitimacy.  Consider the climate debate.  It’s generally accepted that the climate’s warming, but still there are a few doubters, and so the media remains on the fence.  We all suffer from a misinformed explanation of science

So how can the internet help science?  Well Pisani (2011), argues research data sharing is the way of the future, as it will enable greater and faster advancement in research at a considerably reduced cost, because scientists will not be wasting their time doubling up on information.  Using the internet to greater co-ordinate scientific exploration will present great possibilities.  

References

  Pisani, Elizabeth (2011) ‘Medical science will benefit from the research of crowds’,

The Guardian, January 11, http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jan/11/medical-research-datasharing

Accessed 16-5-2013

  Raunig Gerald (no date) ‘Transversality: In Search of a Non-Instrumental Relationship Between Art and Politics’

http://www.acfny.org/transforum/transforum-2/transversality/

Accessed 16-5-2013

  Wilbanks, John (2011) ‘On Science Publishing’, Seed, http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/on_science_publishing   

Accessed 16-5-2013

It’s common knowledge now that social media has truly transformed the power structures of society.  To relate back to last weeks concepts, traditionally politics has been heavily framed.  The act of governing a country has historically been for the elitists of society who determine what is best for all based on what is best for them.  Social media has facilitated a transversality which has cut through the structures of politics across the globe, resulting in the people having more power to hold those in ruling positions accountable. 

Now there are of course benefits of this, as can be seen through the Arab Spring uprising, and the Occupy Wall Street Movement, which acted as statement against the idea that political matters of importance are those only of value to the rentier class (Wark, 2011).  Social media removes the power structures which constrain the voices of the majority, whose opinions may be conflicting with those who hold the wealth and power.  Yet if we consider the impacts closer to home, the influence of new media may be somewhat questionable.  To my understanding, Australia is already a democratic nation, which has the potential to be governed well.  The problem as highlighted by Ellis (2010) is that the intensity of media today has resulted in politicians focusing more on media than actually running the country.  It seems the emphasis has been placed on short term political point scoring and no long term vision

Social media obviously plays an integral role in giving the masses a voice, but it also creates an environment where there are demands on politicians to meet the individual needs of every group.  This of course isn’t always feasible.  Governing is about making the majority happy, and unfortunately, not everyone can have their cake and eat it too.  It’s little wonder that nothing seems to get done, when governments are forced to consider the implications of a decision on a multitude of minority groups, and how a decision might result in a public backlash sparked by a minority group.  

I’m a social media pessimist in this respect, but I believe such a stance is warranted, particularly in light of Lessig’s (2009) discussion of the effects of transparency on politics.  Lessig argues that transparency will push politics over the cliff and I’m inclined to agree, as it’s the very cause of political stagnation, which has been exhibited here in Australia over the past few years.  But let’s face it; social media has created a complex ecology, which has completely re-invented the way we think about politics.

I wonder what will become of politics.  Whilst we could go back to a simpler time before social media, I honestly doubt that will happen.  I think that the idea of government 2.0 will be the way of the future.  I just hope society can be trusted not to screw itself over.  According to Styles (2009) the tricky part of government 2.0 is knowing all the options.  How do citizens make sense of decision making, and how do we as a nation decide what options are given to vote on a decision?

If the concept of government 2.0 did work, it would be empowering, and the possibilities are great.  The pressing question which will face us in the future is how we organise and structure such a democracy so that the important issues get addressed the right way.

    References

[online] Ellis, Bob (2010) ‘Sleepless in Canberra’ The ABC, Drum Unleashed

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/35116.html

Accessed 2-5-2013

  [online] Lessig, Lawrence (2010) ‘Against Transparency: The perils of openness in

government.’

http://www.tnr.com/article/books-and-arts/against-transparency?page=0,0

Accessed 2-5-2013

  [online] Styles, Catherine (2009) “A Government 2.0 idea – first, make all the

functions visible’

http://catherinestyles.com/2009/06/28/a-government-2-0-idea/

Accessed 3-5-2013

  [online] Wark, McKenzie (2011) 'How to Occupy an Abstraction', Verso blog,

October 3, http://www.versobooks.com/blogs/728

Accessed 3-5-2013

The two key concepts from this weeks lecture are transversality and framing.  From my interpretation framing is the idea that everything we perceive and understand is dependent on how it is framed.  This idea feeds off the concept of media ecologies which as suggested by Marshall McLuhan would imply that all aspects of human understanding are in some way impacted by media and technology.  So the media are integral to framing our understanding of a considerable portion of our experience, however as pointed out by Andrew in the lecture, this is not as straight forward as it seems.  The second concept of transversality complicates this a bit by suggesting that certain factors at play work to interfere with framing.  Transversality involves forces which influence framing, creating new connections and transforming things.

Murphie (2006) makes note of the fact that transversality has often been met with a level of fear as it crosses the paths of established structures of society essentially undermining these structures and transforming them in completely new ways.  So with this in mind, the internet itself is a great example of transversality.  It’s a technology which works to create links between completely separate aspects of society, in order to create new ideas and events.

Now to link these complex concepts to some examples which are perhaps easier to comprehend, let’s consider the current state of the music industry.  The industry has historically been framed as one which is highly structured.  Artists make music, are signed to a label, the label makes heaps of money and the artist gets a portion of royalties.  Since the internet, this has transformed the industry in unprecedented ways, as now online music downloading presents a vast array of issues, of which we tend to always focus on piracy.  But for this blog, I’d like to consider something often less thought about which is the resulting changes to music itself through the transversality of the internet, completely messing up the media ecology of music.

Albums themselves have been a big loser in this music revolution, as the internet has enabled listeners the power to customise their consumption of songs and circumvent the traditional structures which in the past had involved going to a record store and buying an album.  Now the MP3 format has enabled an abundance of music online which as Moody (2012) argues, has created a scenario where everyone is always searching for something better.  So now the whole culture of music consumption has altered as listeners go for individual songs and instant gratifications.  A medium like vinyl had always ensured purposeful listening and an engagement with the music.  Now it’s music on the go, all the time, with diminished sound quality. 

  References

Moody, G (2012) ‘The Complex Joys of Music In The Age Of Digital Abundance’ TechDirt (Accessed 25-4-2013)

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20121122/11205321125/complex-joys-music-age-digital-abundance.shtml

 Murphie A (2006) ‘Issue 9; General Issue’ The Fibrecultre Journal. (Accessed 25-4-2013)

http://nine.fibreculturejournal.org/

  Wikipedia (2013) 'Framing (Social Sciences)' Wikipedia, The free Encyclopedia. (Accessed 25-4-2013)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_(social_sciences)

Reality itself is constructed through human perception, but is only an aspect of what we would consider the ‘real’ world.  There are many reasons for this, the most obvious being that there is always more to the world than what we see, but even media is instrumental in framing perceptions.  Media is constantly interfering with our experience and this has become and will continue to be more prevalent as augmented reality technologies become better at interfering.

Augmented reality refers to the idea that the virtual ‘online’ world is blending with the real physical world unlike virtual reality which simply takes us away from the real world into a separate virtual one. The concept of augmented reality, is cleverly illustrated in Luttik’s (2012) video on projection mapping.  Projection mapping itself involves the projection of virtual computer generated imagery onto physical real world objects.  So not only does projection mapping reveal something about what is being projected, but also about the objects that the digital or ‘virtual’ components are being projected on.  More importantly projection mapping can also have the effect of altering the appearance of real life objects, therefore distorting perception and therefore our sense of reality, what is real and what isn’t.  The concepts behind projection mapping have relevance when we start to think about augmented reality, and the influence of AR technologies in shaping our perceptions of reality.

For everyday applications, the most common AR devices will be similar to Google’s ‘Glass’ concept, which are basically a fancy pair of glasses with a built in computer that mediates the surrounding environment.  Whilst the technology itself represents a potentially massive breakthrough, Havens (2011) argues that the arrival of AR devices will involve more of a social and cultural shift as opposed to a technological one.  For example AR technologies will enable us to know key pieces of information about others in a physical space through the technologies ability to recognise them.  Therefore it is more important to consider the social implication of knowing more about strangers and the effects that this may create for privacy.

I don’t want to get stuck on the social effects too much because to a large extent, smart phones have already been providing us with an augmented reality and we all know the social implications that these have had on users.  The ability to mediate the physical space has empowered people to become more familiar with unfamiliar physical spaces.  Yet the technology that Haven (2011), and Drell (2012) make reference to is one which simply immerses us further into augmented reality.

To be honest I’m slightly sceptical of augmented reality technology.  Not only for the reasons outlined by Havens (2011), but also in consideration of the way AR technologies seek to replace real life experiences with aspects of virtual experiences.  Drell (2012) claims that AR technologies will enable us to experience moments within a space when they’re not actually happening, such as the experience of seeing the Glockenspiel chimes in Berlin any time of the day  simply by wearing AR glasses.  Of course it would be stupid to say this isn’t a good thing.  I could go to empty concert arena every night of the week to see Hendrix play.  But would it be the same as actually going to see Jimi Hendrix play in real life?  Doesn’t this kill the perceived ‘romanticism’ of experiencing something in real life.  The experience of ‘being there’ when something actually occurs as opposed to experiencing a mediated version of an event in that space at another time.  I can see AR technologies empowering museums and archaeologists; I just hope that in the future people don’t use augmented reality as an excuse for not living in the real world. 

References

  Drell, Lauren (2012) ‘7 Ways Augmented Reality Will Improve Your Life’,

Mashable, December 20, <http://mashable.com/2012/12/19/augmented-reality-city/

> 

  Havens, John (2013) ‘The Impending Social Consequences of Augmented

Reality’, Mashable, February 8, <http://mashable.com/2013/02/08/augmentedreality-

future/>

  Luttik, Dane (2012) ‘Augmented Reality—Projection Mapping’ <http://

This week’s blog deals with the impact of media technologies on memory and perception.  It is obvious that media are shaping perceptions and increasing memory.  But it is not simply a case of memory being aided by technological innovation. Many of this week’s readings dealt with conceptualising exactly what the mind is, and the idea that our minds exist not only within us but in the external environment as well.

   This is of course heavy stuff to digest, given the complexities of such a statement, so I will try to explain what this all means.  If we think about technologies as extensions of the human body based on the function they perform, than we could consider media technologies as extensions of our minds in the way they archive data.  This of course is reflected by David Chalmers and Andy Clark’s concept of ‘the extended mind’ (1998), which suggests that information, whether it is stored within the mind or in the form of some external medium effectively serves the same purpose and therefore is an extension of the mind.

  The relevance of the extended mind is pertinent when we begin to think about how the media in our lives works to perform the functions of the mind.  Alva Noe (2011) argues that thinking itself is a process external to the brain.  Therefore there is a dependence on the external environment which surrounds us.  We do not simply exist within ourselves but are immersed in the environment, we are a part of the environment, and therefore the cognitive processes that take place inside our brain are dependent on stimuli from the world around us. 

  The interesting question that arises from this is whether technologies are aiding memory or in fact influencing memory through mediated perception.  If thought itself is an external process, than surely media is having an impact on how we think and what we perceive.  Perception itself is individual, based on how we make sense of the world within our own context, yet technology works to mediate perception creating ‘shared experiences’ and influencing individual memory.    

  An interesting point of Steigler’s article early in the piece, he claims that consigning thought to outside forms allows it to reflect on itself.  This is in some respects obvious, as the act of reflecting on thought is essentially the formation of knowledge, yet it is a fundamentally important aspect of understanding the point of media technologies and their impact on our lives.  The ability to store information externally for retention when we need it is itself the reason civilisation has grown into what it is today.  But the question that must be asked is at what cost?

  Steigler argues that the vast array of media technologies are causing us to loose knowledge.  This assertion implies that media technologies are essentially making us passive human beings who have technology to do the work for us.  I think this is a valid point, but there are exceptions.

Surely new technologies themselves create a greater need for memory?  For example Steigler points out that when we lose a mobile phone it becomes apparent that we didn’t have contacts stored in our minds.  But of course the need for storing contact numbers is itself brought about through the technology.  So to say we’re losing knowledge in our minds to machines is not entirely true considering that technologies themselves facilitate the creation of more information that must be stored. 

  I guess this is the aspect of information technologies, where technological determinism becomes relevant.  The more information storing capabilities we create for ourselves, the more information we can store, and as a result the more information we do store.  I don’t think it’s a case of us loosing knowledge, but rather a case of us as humans realising that there is more and more knowledge and information out there that we can’t keep track of.   

    References

   Chalmers, David (2009) ‘The Extended Mind Revisited [1/5], at Hong Kong,

2009’,  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8S149IVHhmc  

  Noë, Alva (2010) ‘Does thinking happen in the brain?’, 13:7 Cosmos and

Culture  http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2010/12/10/131945848/does-thinkinghappen-in-the-brain  

  Stiegler, Bernard (n.d.) ‘Anamnesis and Hypomnesis: Plato as the first thinker of the proletarianisation’ http://arsindustrialis.org/anamnesis-andhypomnesis

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

So far in my experience with media studies over the past two years, the general trend in all courses has been to identify and understand how media impacts on everyday life and shapes human perceptions of the world.  My interpretation of media ecologies therefore stems from this; however I feel it is an area of study that digs deeper to explore the complex relationships between humans, technology and the environment in which they exist, not independent of each other, but rather all together in order to understand the impacts they have each other.

  Influenced by the array of definitions I have read over the last few days, I would define media ecologies myself as the idea that the media create an environment in themselves, a highly mediated one for that matter, which has the ability to shape our experiences, perceptions, attitudes and behaviours.  The theory of media ecologies therefore stems from our understanding of technological determinism because it assumes that the media control us and culture.

  The focus for media ecology lies with the media itself, not the content.  As McLuhan highlighted, the medium is the message, and therefore the interest for those attempting to understand media ecology lies with how certain mediums afford certain freedoms, or place certain restrictions on users.  The Levinson reading for this week highlights this idea well through its look into the development of the phonetic alphabet.  The key to the alphabet’s success was its breaking with reality into an abstract form, which according to Levinson was arranged into bytes of sound (1997, p.16).  This subsequently made the alphabet more versatile, which explains its use across many languages, not to mention it was easier to learn and faster to use.  These things which make the phonetic alphabet what it is are the essence of its medium specificity, and they are key to explaining wider cultural phenomena such as the spread of literacy across Europe.  

  The relevance of thinking about media ecologies is pertinent even more so today given the complex media environment of our world which increasingly blends the real with the virtual.  The boundaries which define what is and what isn’t, obviously mess with our sense of perception and how we react to what we see in our complex environment.  This is reflected in the concepts provided by ‘Plato’s cave’, as highlighted by Andrew in the lecture, which seek to explain how our perception of the world is mediated and only a small aspect of what truly occurs.  Through television for example, we only see a representation of the real world.  On a deeper level the internet may be distorting our sense of reality even more, particularly given the fact that day to day events become mediated through social networking.

So to summarise, understanding medium specificity allows us to grasp what it is exactly that makes a medium what it is.  This coupled with the ideas of how that medium reacts in its context is essentially media ecology.

  References and Bibliography

Levinson, Paul (1997) 'The First Digital Medium' in Soft edge; a natural history and future of the information revolution, London: Routledge:11-20

‘Media Ecology’, Wikipedia <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_ecology

Media Ecology Association ‘What is Media Ecology’ <http://www.mediaecology.org/media_ecology/

This week’s blog centres itself on the issue of whether social change is a ‘hostage’ of new technology, or whether in fact new technology provides an opportunity for society to embrace it.  In order to do this, I’m going to compare the two key arguments of technological determinism and cultural materialism, and their relevance to specific examples of media

McLuhan’s theory of technological determinism suggests that technologies shape the way culture changes.  There is of course validity to McLuhan’s argument if we consider the way our planet has evolved since the beginning of the twentieth century.  The motorcar for example exhibits a level of technological determinism given its thirst for natural recourses, which consequently have lead to our society becoming dependent on oil, not to mention the way our world is structured with roads and cities, all built to accommodate this technology.  Most importantly however, it has resulted in us becoming more mobile in a physical sense than ever before in the history of man kind.

Technological determinism has its place in the study of technology; however after digesting the readings, I felt that McLuhan was perhaps too dedicated to technological determinism, failing to acknowledge the influence of humans on technology.  This influence is of course the basis for the opposing argument for cultural materialism. 

We as humans surely have some control over the technology we create… I hope.  Cultural materialism, which suggests that technologies are created to meet a need, and shape society according to the way they are used, is more optimistic and perhaps applicable.  Isn’t the evolution of media  always a result of us using it in certain ways, discovering flaws and attempting to make it better?  As I begin to consider the current climate we live in, perhaps this is not entirely the case.  Perhaps McLuhan is right in his assertion that we are at the mercy of the technology we create.  New media are emerging faster than ever, and one creation, leads to a new need, thus creating demand for newer better technologies.  In this respect, technology has determined our future and driven us further and further down a path of consumer culture where we are constantly seeking new media to meet petty needs that didn’t exist a few years ago.  Needs which I believe only arise because a media device is found to be inferior as soon as it’s released, simply because progress is moving at such a rapid pace.   

Bibliography

Murphie, Andrew and Potts, John (2003) ‘Theoretical Frameworks’ in Culture and Technology London: Palgrave Macmillan: 11-38

Jeffries, Stuart (2011) ‘Friedrich Kittler and the rise of the machine’, The Guardian, December 28, <http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/dec/28/friedrich-kittler-rise-of-the-machine

Media events can take the form of radical shifts, or less obvious progressions.  The radical shifts produced by media events are the ones that everyone notices, yet as I will try to explain in this first blog post, the continuous change of media itself may be less radical, though it is no less important in instigating change.

From the outset, I’d like to clarify that by media event I mean the changes in technology which bring with them cultural and social shifts.  Events themselves have a specific beginning and end; however, they themselves may be the cause of other media events.

Technology is an obvious driver of change, but as a result it must keep up with the change it creates for itself.  It’s ironic to think the technological breakthroughs in media that were designed to assist humans are constantly requiring new forms of media to either supplement them, or address issues caused by various media.  I think this explains to some degree the idea presented in the lecture that ‘change is changing’.  It is hard to keep up with the change; because once an issue is addressed today it will likely be superseded by another next week. 

Technology itself is the cause of greater change, when we consider the widespread use of portable media, which itself can be used to both create and document media events.