Cool. Like it. There's no description here, and I'm not going to look it up on YouTube to read the description because i'm lazy.
I've been reading a lot of McLuhan lately-- the medium IS the message. The idea that the message of something is contained in the thing itself, not in what it's saying. So with these various communication technologies, what's the message that doesn't change regardless of what's being broadcast? Consumption and production, for one-- the production of the goods that we USE to communicate, and then the purchase/use of them, followed by the production of more, newer, "better", and then their use, and so on.
Also, lots of theorists (Baudrillard, I think, for one) talk about the one-way message of these technologies. A sender, a message, and a receiver, which is us. And THAT is a message in and of itself.
The Internet changes those things somewhat, but only somewhat. Because, ultimately, no matter how subversive this blog might be, it still uses Google technology, and all of us posting from our personal computers, connected to a vast global network of electricity and telecommunications. So there's still a sender-receiver happening to some degree, and there's still the message of buy, make, produce, throw out and buy some more. Even if it's just implicit, rather than explicit.
...and this blog isn't very subversive anyway. Artsy, maybe, but not very subversive. But those theorists would argue that even if it WAS subversive, that wouldn't really matter, b/c it's only as subversive as the technological/economic system that it operates in allows it to be.
Even subversive, anarchist kind of blogs still create 'net traffic, and require the use of computers, electricity, 'net providers, etc. So even there, the "system" is still absorbing and profiting from it.
So the medium is the message.
This rant brought to you by the letter 6 and the number B.
Nice. I agree. Thanks for commenting. Do you think the internet will change more? I can imagine it becoming more independant (on the personal level). I think we are seeing the transition of the markets/economics dictating, to the ideals of the masses dictating what is made and said. Which is scary in its own right since we've been programming everyone to consume like you suggest. Even so, advertising is getting worried right about now. Everything is changing so fast, it threatens the future of the model they work in. Anyhow, off the cuff reply to a reply huh? Weee, people (/person) still checks this blog!
4 comments:
Comment you scoundrels!
Good or bad! Throw fruit for all i care!
What do you make of this. Did you read the description?
Cool. Like it. There's no description here, and I'm not going to look it up on YouTube to read the description because i'm lazy.
I've been reading a lot of McLuhan lately-- the medium IS the message. The idea that the message of something is contained in the thing itself, not in what it's saying. So with these various communication technologies, what's the message that doesn't change regardless of what's being broadcast? Consumption and production, for one-- the production of the goods that we USE to communicate, and then the purchase/use of them, followed by the production of more, newer, "better", and then their use, and so on.
Also, lots of theorists (Baudrillard, I think, for one) talk about the one-way message of these technologies. A sender, a message, and a receiver, which is us. And THAT is a message in and of itself.
The Internet changes those things somewhat, but only somewhat. Because, ultimately, no matter how subversive this blog might be, it still uses Google technology, and all of us posting from our personal computers, connected to a vast global network of electricity and telecommunications. So there's still a sender-receiver happening to some degree, and there's still the message of buy, make, produce, throw out and buy some more. Even if it's just implicit, rather than explicit.
...and this blog isn't very subversive anyway. Artsy, maybe, but not very subversive. But those theorists would argue that even if it WAS subversive, that wouldn't really matter, b/c it's only as subversive as the technological/economic system that it operates in allows it to be.
Even subversive, anarchist kind of blogs still create 'net traffic, and require the use of computers, electricity, 'net providers, etc. So even there, the "system" is still absorbing and profiting from it.
So the medium is the message.
This rant brought to you by the letter 6 and the number B.
Nice. I agree. Thanks for commenting. Do you think the internet will change more? I can imagine it becoming more independant (on the personal level). I think we are seeing the transition of the markets/economics dictating, to the ideals of the masses dictating what is made and said. Which is scary in its own right since we've been programming everyone to consume like you suggest. Even so, advertising is getting worried right about now. Everything is changing so fast, it threatens the future of the model they work in. Anyhow, off the cuff reply to a reply huh? Weee, people (/person) still checks this blog!
Post a Comment