commlab stop motion
shooting stop motion is harder than it looks.
all ideas are secondhand
Ideas don’t pop into our heads from nowhere. We’re always inspired by something. Who owns the rights to reality? If two people took two pictures of Obama from the exact same spot at the exact same moment, which one owns the rights to the picture? How about Obama?
Intellectual property is stupid. That is not to say that artists (and software companies, etc.) shouldn’t be compensated for their efforts, but the current model doesn’t make sense. Jonathan Lethem speaks truth.
understanding media
It could be argued that these activities are in some way the “content” of the electric light, since they could not exist without the electric light.
Mr. McLuhan and I obviously have different definitions of the word “content.” What I feel is lacking in his is the notion of someone trying to intentionally express a given message. If you define “content” as whatever can be interpreted from the use of the medium, then indeed there is no meaning to the message, as there is no place for (deliberate) communication of an underlying idea or theme – all is in the eye of the beholder
If you’d ask me, I’d say that the medium is A message, but definitely not the only message. Does the medium have an effect? Yes. Does it render the content irrelevant? I wouldn’t go that far.
The next chapter discusses “hot” versus “cold” media, that is hi-fi versus lo-fi media. Whereas the first one engages one sense (or more?) fully and has a detribalizing effect, the second one doesn’t carry as much information and is high on participation or completion by the audience. I found the distinction somewhat arbitrary – television is cold and film is hot? print is hot? I realize this is a continuum, but I’m still not entirely sure if it works. I’m still trying to see what value it brings to the table – let me know if you have an idea.
comm-ics lab
Dear Mr. McCloud,
I really liked your book. Please don’t sue me.
Thanks,
Shahar
Understanding comics: the remix.
das kunstwerk im zeitalter seiner technischen reproduzierbarkeit
Reading Walter Benjamin’s mass this week, I felt I was missing something. I don’t know if it’s a lack of context, or some previous knowledge I didn’t have, but I just didn’t get it.
Why does art lose its aura when it’s replicated? Art is a kind of replica in the first place – a replica of reality! Just this week we had Clifford Ross speaking at Red’s class, and he was telling us how he was on a journey to capture the experience he had/to maximize the reality quotient/to make the viewer feel what he felt. I don’t see why this case is any different.
And this is not the only statement Benjamin makes that I have a problem with. The whole painter-magician/cameraman-surgeon analogy is beyond me – I don’t see how a camera dissects reality better than the painter who can bring what he feels into the surface much more easily. A cameraman can only work with what he sees through the lens, a painter is practically unlimited in that respect.
One part that I found interesting was how he gives credit to photography and film as art forms that enable you to get a different look at familiar scenes and everyday life, whether by using close-up or slow motion. I personally appreciate these photos or movies that expose those hidden subjects.
I’ll have to read it again (and again, and probably some background material too) to be able to comment more intelligently on this one. That is all.
the machine stops
Watch out! Technology is dangerous! Look what happens when you rely on it – it diminishes the human spirit, bad things happen, and in the end everyone dies.
There are no ideas here. One hundred years after this short story was written, we seem to be doing okay. Are we becoming more and more dependent upon technology? Probably. Will we be helpless if it is taken away? I doubt it. Perhaps this story was groundbreaking for its time, but today the message looks to me just a tad, well, old.
Moreover, as sad as their existence seems to be, the characters don’t seem unhappy (except for Kuno). Our life are already so far removed from our “original” way of living – compare the life of the average person 500, 1000, 2000, 5000 years ago to the life we have today. Technology is here to stay. The human mind cannot help but constantly inventing, improving, building, and rebuilding. And we adjust to life, whatever form it takes.
In addition, I believe the stage when intelligent machines might pose a threat to us, manipulate us to the point of controlling our existence (a) isn’t going to come anytime soon, and (b) will most likely carry at least as much positive consequences as negative ones. This reminds me of Ray Kurzweil statement that “in the coming decades, humanity will likely create a powerful artificial intelligence,” and his Singularity Institute, whose mission is “to confront this urgent challenge, both the opportunity and the risk.” (http://singinst.org/aboutus/ourmission)
One other thing I found interesting in Forster’s depiction of this reality was the movement away from the physical and toward the mental. The world is one where physicality, closeness, intimacy, are no longer a part of life and are even rejected by “advanced men.” The people in Forster’s world are after ideas. Ideas are the only thing that matters. And – surprisingly – music. Music equals emotion, music equals dancing, dancing is physicality and emotion brings intimacy, closeness. How does music fit into the machine’s grand scheme?
So, as long as there’s music, there is hope. And I, for one, welcome our new mechanical overlords.
orality and literacy
So, I just finished reading the first four chapters of Ong’s Orality and Literacy. I guess I’ll have to give it time to sink in, but I think the main point he’s trying to make is that writing restructures thought, and he’s very convincing. Ong says writing encourages an analytical, left-hemisphere mode of thinking. That’s as a result of several reasons, including the separation of the knower from the known, the ability to make changes and go over what one is writing, and the need to pass the message without resorting to intonation, gestures, etc. like in spoken language (leading to more refined and distilled meaningfulness).
This is a mode of expression inherently different from rhetorical speech, and one that is more valued in Western culture, in my opinion. Personally, I regret not having been educated in the spirit of rhetoric, trained to think on my feet and to be able to articulate my opinion as I go. Even though today, with the rise of electronic telecommunications, the world has shifted more into textual means of communication, I believe a significant (and perhaps a more important) portion of human interactions is still oral-based and could benefit from such skills.
In addition, writing (and reading) are solitary, self-focused, and abstract activities which encourage a disconnection from the world – a world we all live in, whether we like it or not. Looking inward and analyzing the self isn’t necessarily a good thing. Ong states it is essential for “full human life” (p.82), but I must say I can’t see how that makes life any better. In fact, excessive self-focus can lead to and is associated with rumination, which is linked to depression (scientists say) – so what good is it anyway?
The kind of thinking exhibited by primary-oral persons – practical, situational, and goal-oriented is one that I find personally appealing. The confusion of modern life is partly the result of too much thinking. We live inside our minds, disconnected from the present moment, thinking we are in touch with ourselves, but in reality (no pun intended) most likely inventing our self as we go along. I always find it difficult to describe myself – could it be that it’s simply not a natural thing to do?
Maybe it would do us good to stop writing for a little bit and try talking to each other instead, try to look outside instead of inside. Or maybe this is just nostalgia speaking. One thing I appreciate about Ong’s writing is that he does not judge, and always tries to bring to light the positive as well as the negative, or more often just the relative differences.
Several other points I found interesting:
- Reading necessitates conversion to sound, aloud or in imagination – I don’t think this is necessarily true. The sound might be just an epiphenomena caused by the strong association between the visual and oral forms of the word. You might ask then, why don’t we observe the reverse phenomena. A possible explanation could be that vision is more outward-oriented and thus the outside input overcomes the internal visual association that is brought up by hearing a word.
- Study vs. apprenticeship – Before writing (or even printing), one could not learn anything on her own and had to have a master that will teach her. We have too little of that nowadays. Same goes for the wise old men… where have they gone??
- The whole argument about Homer’s formulas – yes or no – seems entirely pointless to me. If a mash-up artist can be considered a creative genius, how could Homer be any less of a genius?
- Sound is associated with life. Something that is dead makes no sound (but can be seen, smelled, touched, etc.). Never thought of that.
- If a speaker asks the audience to read a handout, as each reader enters his private world, the unity of the audience is shattered (p. 74) – what does that say about powerpoint? (powerpoint makes you stupid!)
- Real time has no divisions at all – a clock falsifies time. Reduced to space (clock, calendar), time seems more under control.
- The modern critique of the computer – ‘garbage in, garbage out’ – doesn’t that also apply to a lot of people?
- boustrophedon movement – left to right, then back with letters inverted in the direction of line = totally cool, and makes sense too. I always get the lines mixed up when my eyes jump from one line to the next.