New Media Cultures Blog

2009-01-05T16:05:25+01:00

New Media Cultures Blog
Within this New Media Cultures blog i will be discussing some of the points which we were made aware of in our lectures. We looked at a wide range of topics which effect society and technology as well as watching films which connote a way of thinking, I’ll be foregrounding David Cronenberg’s ‘Videodrome’ (1983), digital aesthetic and its relationship with photography and the real and the virtual, this will also reproduce some ideas which are made within digital aesthetic. Looking at these subjects will allow me to interact with the topics among them. I have chosen to focus on these three factors of this module as they are all related to each other and compliment the arguments surrounding them. The dominate factors within these subjects are will technology make us lose sight of what is real, using examples of how technology has changed areas society has it made them less important and what will the future hold for new media cultures? My blog is to highlight my understanding of the topics which are discussed and to create my own opinions about what they will do to our society and how will it be different from previous times.

‘Videodrome’ has a very complex plot and when i first watched it i was left feeling very confused, however taking a step back you can see how it relates to everyday life. The plot is very complex and slightly difficult to comprehend, the protagonist in ‘Videodrome’ is Max Renn and he becomes obsessed with the images which are shown on the channel ‘videodrome’. Watching these programmes enables the images to get into the viewers head and essentially create a tumour in their brain. Towards the end of the film, Max has very little understanding of what is reality and what has been manipulated by the channel. This can be seen with programmes such as ‘Eastenders’, all of the images we see on ‘Eastenders’ are not real life, they do not actually happen, yet when the audience watch it they are absorbed as if they were reality. This is a less dramatic message which is shown in ‘Videodrome’, With this in mind, in theory, this way of 'everyday' is a false sense of security and more importantly not reality. Another way of looking at ‘Videodrome’ is to see its relationship between technology and its influence on society. As Max watches the channel he gets hallucinations of reality, with new media technologies being created at a all time high society today connote how we can also be manipulated by technology. It’s on a different level to ‘Videodrome’ however similar in their differences; technology is a huge business and in recent years boomed in public demand. With these changes our lives have changed, this happened to Max when he was introduced to ‘Videodrome’. Rather than just playing a computer game with a controller, you can actually sit and become 100% involved with the play; an example of this is with a steering wheel controller for a racing game. Even though you are playing a game, and actually not driving, the simulation of driving creates a sense of real. I feel that ‘Videodrome’ is a odd and an extreme exaggeration of how new media technologies may influence life, however for its time it seems Cronenberg’s mind set for the future of media was not extreme at all. It poses very important questions towards the media and technology are we slaves to the media and do have any grasp on reality or is that presented for us as well?

This film linked in with the topic of the real and the virtual, in the technological age we are becoming more dependent on technology and giving it larger roles in our life. It has been linked back to Jean Baudrillard’s work about ‘simulation’; within his work he believes that humans have signs and symbols rather than actual reality. ‘Simulacra’ is the link which the media has with giving society these signs and symbols. An example of this in the modern world is how we construct the normalities of life, cars have become a necessity in today’s society, and most people who own cars could do without them. The symbol of cars was created by the media, advertising campaigns for certain companies connote how having a car makes you cool, or will let you get a women. They also show how families should have a car as well. To extend this, the people society aspire to all have fabulous cars, celebrities are always driving the newest cars and this then enhances the desire to have one.
It has also been suggested that the real and the virtual will unite in the next few decades with the technological advancement which will occur. Moving technology forward to help society seems like a positive direction to look towards, ‘collective media production by all, for all, is socialistic’ (http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/250/125), the technological socialization of society is critically looked upon by Brecht and Benjamin. An example they use is that writers can be the author as well as the reader. If we read something and have a thought on it then we are able to write to that person airing the view, newspapers are ideal for this. People read the newspaper and constantly write in with opinions about what they have read; the roles within society are interchangeable. This can be seen with technology, ‘Apple’ has no research unit, and they rely solely on their users. Not only do they take the ideas from their users but they actually allow them to make them, the iPod was made into a calendar and personal organiser by a user in Japan. With this information ‘Apple’ has then been able to produce many more products such as the IPod touch and the iphone.

Digital aesthetic is the next topic i will look at, highlighting digital enhancements to photography. With the increase of digital photos and digital cameras it appears that our relationship with these texts has also changed. An example of this is that any person can be a photographer, if you have a digital camera you can take high quality photos and upload then yourself, you are also able to add changes using software as minimal as Microsoft Paint. With the rise of these technologies it’s changed our interaction with the photos as well, we generally do not have prints of them in a photo album, something that we can hold and look at. Rather than that, we have virtual photo albums that are stores on a computer, it’s easy to access and you can view the photos in a simple way, however you are not actually holding anything, you are just looking at pixels on a computer screen. Even with this change, they still hold some of the same relationships previous to the digitalisation of photography; they are still used for memories, keep sakes, self confidence and social value. With the changes that have occurred in recent years new meaning of photos have also become noticeable. Exchange value is a very recent new relationship which we have with photographs, with the digital boost in computer technology and social networking websites such as ‘Facebook’, we are able to upload our photos to the world wide web for everyone and anyone to view. This also acts as a communication tool, someone who has never met you before can see who you are, what your friends are like or even know what pets you have.
Looking at photographers who have bloomed within the digital aesthetic of photography, Inez van Lamsweerde is a very influential photographer. Her main works are for fashion magazines; the photograph which had the two girls and the shuttle launch at the background is a perfect way to show how photography has changed. The entire background is digitally added to the original, it’s difficult to differentiate what was actually photographed. The girls in the photo are practically identical and the ability for them to be holding the same lolly pop is also due to digital technology. Its also more than likely that they have been airbrushed, again to make the photo less real. The first photographers such as Alfred Stieglitz and Edward Weston manipulated their photographs but not in such a drastic way. Stieglitz’s photos were all staged. Early photographers saw the enhancements of photos, John Heartfield’s photo ‘Adolf the Superman’ is quite obviously not real, you can see on the photograph where Heartfield has layered his photo due to the cut marks and over lapping found on the picture. It is not as convincing as Lamsweerde’s photograph above. The digital technologies allow photographers to intervene and interact with pictures/photos, more than any other time before.
Digital adaptation of photos may reflect societies need to escape the real, a personal example of this is when i take a photo and put it on my computer I always edit the colours and saturation of the picture to create a more intense photograph. This allows my eyes to be bluer and my skin to be a little less fair. There is therefore a complex relationship between the representation of the real and the real itself. I feel that photography has not lost its power with the digitalization of it, I think it has grown with the times of technology and became a lot more accessible and also fun.

I feel that after the lectures on new media cultures I have been able to see just how much impact the digital and technological advances are having on our world. It’s interesting linking subjects from today’s society with theorist of the past, it’s also something that we can use to see what we have in store for us over the next few decades, and how life may change and if it will be for the good. I feel that new media cultures which have been advanced since I’ve been alive are brilliant. It’s probably seen as extremely sad in many people’s eyes but most of my generation could not live without the likes of facebook or MySpace, or their mobile phones and computers. I think that it shows a need of information in society and how we are constantly looking for things to make life easier. Using technology as communication is a very inspiring concept, of course it makes the world smaller but people are able to see things which they would only be able to if they went to that place. Taking facebook again for an example, it is a fantastic way for people to meet and get to know one another. I am able to know what my friends are doing, discuss on their plans that we can make, see whom going to the same events as myself and also play on games. This is within one website, and it’s all for free. I think the popularity for a website like facebook and MySpace shows how society has accepted a change in communication but they are embracing it rather than leaning towards older methods.
It does have its negatives’ to say the least, I would never want to not know what is reality like Max in ‘Videodrome’ or lose the realization that we are all humans and not technological machines filled with information. I also would not like to think of ourselves losing the face to face social interaction which we get from meeting up with a friend for a coffee. The increase of technology is not society losing sight on reality but reality being brought forward to the times, as the world is changing then so do the objects around us, moving forward is the only way society can develop.

Bibliography
Baudrillard, J. The Ecstasy of Communication Semiotext(e) 1987 (also printed in Foster, H. Postmodern Culture Pluto 1985)
Review of Tapscott & Williams: http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/viewFile/250/125
http://www.medienkunstnetz.de/themes/aesthetics_of_the_digital/

WORD COUNT: 1,974

Comments