I love how we read Bolter’s introduction online—Manovich definitely needs to get with the times (just kidding).
I enjoyed both of these readings. I like the ideas they are beginning to present, but also the different ways in which they chose to present them.
Both introductions discuss the role of “New Media,” as Manovich calls it, in this point in our cultural history. They are both careful to avoid anything resembling a unified prediction of what will happen, although they acknowledge that the theories they forward should imply how new media will develop. It’s interesting how they both draw on history to contextualize the present and infer the future.
Manovich’ background in computer science and languages (as a native Russian speaker) seemed to make him very sensitive to words and language systems (computer programming, etc.). Manovich dedicates a whole section to explaining the words he uses: he even specifically addresses why he chose the word language for the title of the book on page 12.
I also appreciated how Manovich was clear about what his book is meant to do, and what he hopes it will do:
“What follows is an attempt at both a record and a theory of the present” (Manovich 7).
This book focuses on “…the emergent conventions, recurrent design patterns, and key forms of new media” (Manovich 12).
“This book aims to situate new media in relation to a number of other areas of culture, both past and present” (Manovich 13).
I’m not sure I fully get (and it might be my limited perspective) the premise on which Manovich wrote his book. In understand/agree that the development of cinema and media wasn’t as theorized and/or documented well enough, but I’m not sure I agree with this statement:
“In contrast to a hundred years ago, when cinema was coming into being, we are fully aware of the significance of this new media revolution” (Manovich 6).
I’m not sure who the “we” are in this statement (culture at large?), but I don’t feel an awareness—especially a “full” awareness—of the significance of a media revolution. I would contend that technology and new media are looked down upon and not fully appreciated. I am having a hard time reconciling this statement with the rest of his ideas—anyone have any ideas? What did he mean?
Additional quotes that I found interesting:
“new media representations are also inevitably biased. They represent/construct some features of physical reality at the expense of others, one worldview among many, one possible system of categories among numerous others…by organizing data in particular ways, they privilege particular models of the world and the human subject” (Manovich 15-16).
“Electronic writing is mechanical and precise like printing, organic and evolutionary like handwriting, visually eclectic like hieroglyphics and picture writing. On the other hand, electronic writing is fluid and dynamic to a greater degree than previous technologies. The coming of this new form in fact helps us to understand the choices, the specializations, that the earlier printed book entailed” (Bolter…about 3/7ths down page 1).
“This ideal of cultural unity through a shared literary inheritance, which has received so many assaults in the 20th century, must now suffer further by the introduction of new forms of highly individualized writing and reading” (Bolter…about 7/8ths down page 1)
“How does this writing space refashion its predecessor? How does it claim to improve on print's ability to make our thoughts visible and to constitute the lines of communication for our society?” (Bolter the last two sentences of page 1)
I was interested in Bolter's comments about handwriting's ease of use compared to technology. I found this video about handwriting and the iPad.
I too, had many of the same questions that you posed about Manovich's claims and concerns that I hope we can get further clarification on in class. I am glad I was not the only one.
ReplyDeleteI also thought about your quote:
“This ideal of cultural unity through a shared literary inheritance, which has received so many assaults in the 20th century, must now suffer further by the introduction of new forms of highly individualized writing and reading” (Bolter…about 7/8ths down page 1)
My thoughts on this were how book, newspapers etc gave people a sense of community, a unity they felt from knowing many were reading the same things, appreciating the same books, opinions even, or at least a starting point of common things to discuss. Now with the vast data bases on the internet, blogs, access to remote news and random information, there does seem to be a sense of a digital divide among people or even classes too. It seems as though before internet as it is now, people felt that they could keep up with information, and that most had the same access to the same knowledge bases. Now it seems that while technically more information is available ( which is a good thing), the gap in keeping up seems to be getting wider.
I feel it, I am thinking about it further but I need to expand my connections to this phenomenon and just what it's far reaching and close to home implications are.
Hear, hear! I am glad not to be the only one who has wondered about the substantiation of some of Manovich's claims... I read on into the first chapter and found a few more there. I expect discussion tonight to be quite interesting....
ReplyDelete