W1.1 Assignment, "The Language of New Media"
Lev Manovich's "The Language of New Media" attempts to define what is, and what is not, New Media by listing a series of differentiating attributes, and by demolishing some myths.
I feel that Manovich's defining attributes miss a key point: that New Media meeting his criteria are no longer directly perceivable by human senses, but instead require the intervention of the computer. Implicit in this, is that the process of consuming media requires a simultaneous process of reconstruction, that necessarily is subject to manipulation and distortion. This is not so different from current models of the way cognition functions - however, these models are heavily influenced by computer technology.
This said, perhaps one of the roles of an artist working in new media can be to draw attention to this possiblity of ongoing manipulation and distortion, and encourage the viewer (consumer? spectator? partner in interaction?) to reflect on the ways this may occur in older media, and in their own procesess of cognition.
Manovich lists the defining attributes of New Media as 1) Numerical Representation, 2) Modularity, 3) Automation, 4) Variability and 5) Transcoding. He draws out some key implications of these, but in my view misses one of the most significant: that New Media, so defined, cannot be directly perceived by human senses without the intervention of the computer, and that intervention introduces the possibility of invisible manipulation.
Many previous media can be perceived "unassisted": a painting can be viewed simply by observing its canvas, a photograph can be viewed without having the camera on hand, a book can be read without having a printing press available. Cinema is an interesting case, in that a projector is required to view a movie in its proper form, as moving images. However, physical examination of the film will reveal visible still images, and it is possible to extract some meaning this way. Pre-digital audio is also interesting, in that physical examination of the media does not allow actually hearing the contents of the piece (you can't listen to an LP by putting it against your ear).
However, both cinema and pre-digital audio allow for relatively little manipulation - for the most part, what is played back is pretty much what the creator of the work intended. Though Burroughs, Gysin, etc. did play with cinema ("cut-ups") and DJs do manipulate LPs (by scratching), this manipulation is usually very obvious, and an explicity part of the work.
The interesting thing about new digital media is that it is almost impossible to verify the authenticity of a work by examining the digital media directly - the work is created anew, by the computer, every time it is viewed/listened to. A viewer cannot get a sense of the work by looking at a CD, or a hard drive, or an internet connection. A printed representation of the numeric data is not often going to be intelligible. (There are exceptions! I know many coders who can look at a memory dump and infer what is going on, in a process analogous to reading a score.) However, viewer expectations are that it still exhibits characteristics of old media in terms of permanence and repeatability, and these expectations are often inaccurate.
For example, a printed encyclopedia does not vary once it is published. Updates are released in the form of new editions, which must be physically purchased and replaced, in a very obvious stage. Something like the Wikipedia, however, can be transparently updated without a user being aware that changes have occurred. Thus it is possible to "change history" by editing entries after the effect. As the Wikipedia has become more mainstream, this is now becoming an endemic problem! (Example: Mark Taylor Wikipedia Controversy) This is not to say that old media can't be changed: for example, during the Stalin era in the USSR, periodic instructions would be sent to alter encyclopedias and reference texts by cutting or blacking out photographs of political figures that had fallen out of favor. At least this process was highly visible, and left trails!
In another example, previous generations of video recording technology were relatively fixed: if you taped a show using a VCR, and put that tape on a shelf, it would not change. However, recent versions of Tivo allow for a broadcaster to retroactively modify or delete a recording, without the user being aware of this!
Some would argue that new media are actually more similar to the way human consciousness works (at least in current models), with a constant synthesis and recreation of the environment, and with notoriously inaccurate, and variable, memories. I would argue that the permanence of older media is actually a useful counterbalance to the variability of the human mind (eg. in law enforcement, business and law) and that it may be dangerous to lose it. Many online shops and financial institutions still require a signed fax to confirm large transactions. (Note that the immutability of old media is to some extent illusory, hence the popularity of forgery throughout history.)
However, the very mutability and variability of new media does seem to be inspiring further reflection on how the mind works, and the extent to which old media can also be manipulated and distorted. Someone who grows up with a keen awareness of the variability of new media may also develop a healthy skepticism about old media, and even habits of thought.
So what does this imply for an artist working in New Media?
Rather than attempting to recreate old forms using new tools, perhaps a valuable activity might be to draw attention to the possibilities of manipulation and distortion, and encourage viewers (listeners? consumers? participants?) to reflect on how these distortions are present in old media, and even in the way they and others see the world.