First of all I have to comment on all of the stuff that was on the Internet to look at and listen to for this week - I guess Iam just not that political because I didn't get most of it - I guess if people want to spend their time posting thier personal opinions on the Internet that is just fine, but I don't have to partake in it. I don't really care about politics and I vote for the person, not the party -- So, to waste time on the Internet listening to what someone thinks is politically relavant is a waste of minutes of my life I will never get back and could have been doing something better with ---
Moving on to Manovich -- I am still having the same problems I have had with him throughout this entire book and that is that he talks about things I have no concept of and uses examples for clarity that I have no idea what he is talking about. In this last chapter he is defining cinema (I guess) but he goes the long way around to get there. On page 291 he says, "Any unique image that you desire probably already exists on the Internet or in some database. . . . the problem today is no longer how to create the right image, but how to find an already existing one." This is so true for me -- I can waste hours of time looking on the Internet for soemthing I can go and find in the library in less then half the time. the Internet frustrates me and I end up in places on it that I had no intention of going and have nothing to do with what I was looking for in the first place. I would rather spend the time with a book. It may not be exactly what I had in mind, but at least I can find it without going crazy.
I understand that Manovich is trying to make the connection of the evolution of the computer as a form of cinema, but I don't know why he feels the need to explain it in excruciating detail. Sometimes he needs to make his point and move on. I don't really watch movies and since I don't watch things on the Internet, I guess I am missing out on how far special effects and things like that have really come, but since I don't untilize those things I really don't feel like I am missing out on something vital to my everyday life. On the top of page 305 manovich talks about painting "by hand from scratch" some frames to make them "indistinguishable from live photography" - why not just use live photography? Wouldn't it make more sense to just use what you are trying to create? I don't get it!
From the way Manovich puts it in this chapter it has taken us 100 years to get right back to where we were as far as how we create cinema. Does that make any sense?
I didn't exactly know what he meant by "loop". I always thought loop meant to redo the same piece of film over and over again. Is that what he is talking about? If so, why?
I think so much of what is on the Internet is just creepy. I don't want to live in a world where I create some kind of utopia, like Second Life. It makes me think of the drug addict or alcoholic that uses to escape from the reality of their own world. Why look for an escape - just change what you don't like and live in the real world not some made-up place you think you will be happy in.
In the text, Manovich puts forth a theory of new media, what he calls the language of new media. To me, it's an interesting text because it addresses, among other things, the affects of new media on narrative, and narrative is of course central to the work we do in English studies. If it's true, as Manovich writes, that the language of cinema is the language of new media, then what impact does that have on English studies? How should we proceed with instruction?
ReplyDeleteHis comment on 305 is part of a much larger argument on the subject of the effects on cinema of new media. He observes in this section that aspects of the history of visual representation (such as hand painting) before cinema are being recuperated in the digital age. His comment about the loop are the same--that as cinema becomes digitized, it recuperates parts of its history.
As I read, I found it interesting that, though internet media is still quite dodgy as far as you're concerned, one of your critiques of Manovich is that he needs to get to a point quicker. This seems, at least to me, to be a very "new media" critique. Though talking about new media, he really has created a very archetypal book to do so, if that makes any sense. It's very systematic, very linear (excluding the opening collection of quotes and images), and extremely thorough. Hmm. What would the YouTube version of this text look like?
ReplyDelete