One of the common themes that runs through this week's readings is the inherent emancipatory power of modern digital media. What do you make of this? Can media as such be liberating?
Negroponte is undeniably optimistic about the future the digital age promises. Hence the referral of this as the “An Age of Optimism.” His optimism mostly lies in the distinction he draws between information in bits and information in atoms. Atoms are bound by the physical and therefore by laws and political agendas. Bits on the other hand are “borderless, stored and manipulated with absolutely no respect for geological boundaries,” as Negroponte points out, they cannot be held up at customs. Most importantly though is “the access, the mobility, and the ability to affect change that will make the future so different from the present.” Although this may seem vague, he also provides many solid examples. To me, the most intriguing was his illustration of the way the digital age may view work. Going back to the readings we did on Stewart Brand, it struck me how Turner emphasized how Brand and those of his generation were as afraid for their loss of freedom and individuality by communism as by the mundane middle class work industrial life offered them. Hence, Brand and many others who wanted to emancipate themselves from the dredges of daily life turned to technology and what was to become a digital world. To Negroponte, this has resulted in “the crisp line between love and duty will blur by virtue of a common denominator – being digital” I think this definitely has a case and point, the nerds of the past are being replaced by socially capable nerds who want to mix their work with fun and play.
Barlow explores similar but different avenues of emancipation to be rendered by modern digital media. He echoes Turkle in the conviction that cyberspace is different from the real world. It is democratic and self governs where in the real world we need to come together to consent to be regulated. In cyberspace this has not happened, because there has been no need for consented regulation. In a way, I agree with Barlow, but in some ways I don’t. I understand that he may have a point about the inadequacies of government regulation. I also trust that trying to impose old standards on something so inherently different will only prove problematic. However, cyberspace and the real world are not as separate as he makes them out to be. They are not two separate worlds. And since there is some serious overlap, you cannot regulate one without regulating the others especially with so many business going on the web. Regardless, his made for the most interesting reading.
Gilder takes me back to McLuahn and the argument of cold and hot media. I think his emphasis on the computer as a much more democratic process of viewing, editing, and making your own images has been proven over 100 times correct, and it definitely has affected the way the populace view media. My favorite quote “the telecomputer will enrich and strengthen democracy and capitalism all around the world” ha ha. Love the fear of the Japanese. I enjoyed and understood the reading, but I felt the beginning did not add much to the media theory we already read, and end was just him giving drastic end of America’s supremacy warnings?
Overall, I think that these authors are correct, just as many of the others were. New technology always seems to move us towards a more democratic system. It always comes with its problems, but the great levilizing power of media changes cannot be denied.
No comments:
Post a Comment