#tbey

Digital Poem

"I had no time to hate because" - Emily Dickinson

So, after reading Baudrillard I felt that I had a better grasp on all three of the media theories that we have read thus far (excluding the GNU Manifesto). That being said, I am not sure who I agree with yet. Here is my condensed summary of each theory:

McLuhan ~ a medium is an extension of the person.

Enzensberger ~ transform media into a socialized means of production.

Baudrillard ~ media should allow for a response instead of negating any linked communication.

McLuhan’s belief that the medium is the message is an interesting point, and it seems that both Enzensberger and Baudrillard agree on that point, but they differ on other points. Baudrillard and Enzensberger agree that there is a need for more communication in the media, but Baudrillard thinks that the media does not allow for any response. In a way, I see all three of these men agreeing with each other about their discontent with the media, but I think that they are posing different kinds of solutions to the problem.

My question for Baudrillard, though, is how can “a medium deprive information of its original context”??? I would think that the original context of information is a thought in someone’s head. How can it be skewed then from your head to a piece of paper?

I would consider that everyone take a look at this article by Jason Gross on Smashing Magazine. He has an interesting perspective on McLuhan’s “The Medium is the Message” and I think it is very relevant to our conversations this month.