In his second chapter, Manovich begins by contrasting the implications of the futuristic outlooks of Blade Runner and the Macintosh, released in close succession. Manovich proceeds to a historical map of the cultural interface with particular focus paid to how the paradigms of cinema and the printed word contributed.
Manovich mentions the industrial divide and Marx’s ideal citizen to highlight the dramatic shift towards cultural interfaces in which the realms of work and play blur when both come to be done on the same machine. Although I often feel overwhelmed by the complexity of this new arrangement, I couldn’t help but feel awe and admiration for the miracle of opportunity described on the bottom of page 65 and the top of 66. That such complexity and possibility relies on “the user in essence…using the same tools and commands” made me grateful for these metaphorical tools and commands that afford us accessibility.
When Manovich discussed today’s media as “being ‘liberated’ from traditional physical storage media,” I thought about the print rhetorical piece I posted to the class blog in a response. I will post that piece again here now as it ties in. I’m not sure who wrote it, but it is an amusing piece of rhetoric.
The B.O.O.K. Exciting new technology!
Announcing a new device called, "BOOK," an acronym for "Built-in Orderly Organized Knowledge."
The BOOK is a revolutionary breakthrough in technology: No wires, no electric circuits, no batteries, nothing to be connected or switched on. It's so easy to use even a child can operate it. Just lift its cover!
Compact and portable, it can be used anywhere - even sitting in an armchair by the fire - yet it is powerful enough to hold as much information as a CD-ROM disc. Here's how it works...
Each BOOK is constructed of sequentially numbered sheets of paper (recyclable), each capable of holding thousands of bits of information. These pages are locked together with a custom-fit device called a binder, which keeps the sheets in their correct sequence. Opaque Paper Technology (OPT) allows manufacturers to use both sides of the sheet, doubling the information density and cutting costs in half.
Experts are divided on the prospects for further increases in information density; for now BOOKs with more information simply use more pages. This makes them thicker and harder to carry, and has drawn some criticism from the mobile computing crowd.
Each sheet is scanned optically, registering information directly into your brain. A flick of the finger takes you to the next sheet. The BOOK maybe taken up at any time and used by merely opening it. The BOOK never crashes and never needs rebooting, though like other display devices it can become unusable if dropped overboard. The "browse" feature allows you to move instantly to any sheet, and move forward or backward as you wish.
Many come with an "index" feature, which pinpoints the exact location of any selected information for instant retrieval. An optional "BOOKmark" accessory allows you to open the BOOK to the exact place you left it in a previous session - even if the BOOK has been closed. BOOKmarks fit universal design standards; thus, a single BOOKmark can be used in BOOKs by various manufacturers. Conversely, numerous bookmarkers can be used in a single BOOK if the user wants to store numerous views at once. The number is limited only by the number of pages in the BOOK.
You can also make personal notes next to BOOK text entries with an optional programming tool, the Portable Erasable Nib Cryptic Intercommunication Language Stylus (PENCILS).
Portable, durable, and affordable, the BOOK is being hailed as the entertainment wave of the future. The BOOK's appeal seems so certain that thousands of content creators have committed to the platform. Look for a flood of new titles soon.
On page 73, Manovich likens the printed word and cinema to interfaces in their own right: ‘each has its own grammar of actions, each comes with its own metaphors, each offers a particular physical interface.” I found this satisfying and even helpful as an explanation of why “we still have not left the era of the screen.” As we continue to explore and create this “new cultural metalanguage,” it is a nice thought that other, older languages will contribute -that new media will never be divorced from old media. On page 93 Manovich mentions that both print and cinema underwent long periods of stability. It seemed that he was skeptical that this process would repeat regarding the interface. One only needs to examine Neil Postman’s “metaphor of the clock” from Teaching as a Subversive Activity to share in this suspicion. Here is an except from that text:
Neil Postman’s “Change Revolution” and Metaphor of the Clock.
Image a clock face with 60 minutes on it. The clock stands for man’s use of writing systems, approximately 3,000 years. Each minute is 50 years. On this scale:
There was no change of media until 9 minutes ago with the Printing Press.
Image a clock face with 60 minutes on it. The clock stands for man’s use of writing systems, approximately 3,000 years. Each minute is 50 years. On this scale:
There was no change of media until 9 minutes ago with the Printing Press.
3 minutes ago we got the telegraph, photograph, and the locomotive arrived.
2 minutes ago: the telephone, motion pictures, automobiles, aeroplane, and radio.
1 mintues ago the talking picture.
In the last 10 seconds we got television.
In the last 5 seconds, the computer.
In the last second we got communication satellites.
A fraction of a second ago we got the laser beam.
Postman wrote this in 1969.
On page 79, Manovich writes “we have what is an unprecedented situation in the history of cultural languages- a language designed by a small group of people that is immediately adopted by millions of computer users.” He jokes that this is so because of Chomsky’s “wired” hypothesis. I agree with Manovich that the acquisition is possible because “these languages are based on previous and already familiar cultural forms.” But I don’t think he goes far enough, maybe because it is implied or not interesting to him. Incentives and little other choice if you want to function in modern society also seem relevant to this discussion.
I thought the footnote on page 84 was interesting. I was wondering if “critical literature” about video games still remains “slim” since the publication of this book. Is anyone familiar with such texts on games such as Grand Theft Auto? I would be interesting in reading video games criticism other than the “they will make you violent” fare.
Finally, a tip of the cap to war. Thanks for giving us the computer screen! What booms and boons will you bestow on us next, sweet war?
I can't help but view your posting with the light of having just read another by Kimberly, so bear with me on this...
ReplyDeleteYou had a lot of good points, but what really struck me was the statement that Blade Runner and the Macintosh computer were release in close succession. Only from the perspective of someone having lived through it and looking back would a two year gap be considered close succession. Maybe other people think so too, but from my perspective, it isn't. I read that and didn't quite get the point of putting together these things that happened two whole years apart, so I needed your post to explain that to me. Upon reading that, I thought it was a strange connection because I've seen leaps and bounds within a two year break on how society views things.
I think this is why I am having such a hard time understanding the Manovich reading. I'm an outsider who just doesn't share his perspective on things. I'm not that young, but I'm trying to understand things the way that someone who lived through them would, and I just can't do that.