Friday, August 28, 2009
Week 1: What is New Media?
Post here if you are signed up to blog about week one's readings, or if you want to continue our in-class discussion. I realize that I might have moved too quickly today, so for those of you who are still confused as to what "new media" really is... we'll cover the Manovich on Monday and recap before moving on to the Edwards.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In explaining “What is new media” Manovich focuses on the characteristics of new media (computerization allows content to be customized, allows for faster processes, etc). The Chun article contributes two definitions of the word ‘new’ to the discussion. Something can be new if it is completely original or if it “revitalizes” something which previously existed. I think that both these approaches to defining new media miss an important human aspect. Some of the points in the articles have helped me think about how new media is more than just new technologies or the creative re-imagination of something old. New media also has to fulfill the needs and wants of people or it won’t be used and ends up as failed media.
ReplyDeleteFor example, in the 90s WebTV was introduced as a device that could bring the Internet to your television (later on came devices that could turn computers into televisions by live streaming broadcast networks). Both of these could be considered new media using the framework provided by the readings because they took an existing technology and gave them new functions. But without meeting people’s needs for convenience and practicality, among other things, things like WebTV were more or less unsuccessful. With the proliferation of faster internet access, services like these (and recreations of the recreations like Youtube and digital downloads) really began to gain popularity and fit some of the other propositions provided in the Manovich reading (for example, how Youtube might “allow better democracy” (p19)). New technologies can have many potential benefits, but if people aren’t using them then they can’t be considered new media.
I think point #4 brought up by Manovich speaks most closely to what I am arguing: “New Media as the mix between existing cultural conventions and the convention of software (p18).” When new technologies better mix what people want and what the software provides it is more likely to be accepted. In addition I would add that new media is also the convergence of different technologies. Using the WebTV example, similar technologies didn’t take off until the convergence of various Internet networking, computer hardware, and software developments. Only then could it successfully mix with existing cultural conventions to produce something that people really liked to use.
- Rolando Vasquez
Marketers consistently divide consumers into at least three categories... early adopters, who in the case of tech are those savvy or visionary or acquisitive people you know that always have and are trying out the latest technology before everyone else; the majority of us, who might be considered more pragmatic, because we wait until the early adopters have put the technology through its paces before we commit; and the laggers, people who are neither ahead of the curve or on the hump but are actually behind the curve... that neighbor of yours who still doesn't know how to email or reads off of papyrus scrolls. For further reading: G. Moore's Crossing the Chasm.
ReplyDelete