Computers are a central part of my life as a student and as a human being. I use computers every day, and probably create some sort of “new media” text several times a day. I am not exactly sure how to tackle the problem of computers as a necessity, though. I think if they were magically removed from the world tomorrow, I would certainly be deprived of an ability to create and gather knowledge, but I think that if computers did not exist something else would. There would still be some sort of “new media,” or other technology to accomplish similar goals.
Wysocki defines “new media” as any media which is aware of its material. Presumably the media would have to somehow reference itself and its own material, otherwise it would be impossible to determine if it “knows” what its material is. An essay which comments on its own nature as an essay, a webpage which references its existence on the internet, and so on. Wysocki’s definition is concerned with “materiality,” which is an over-suffixed way of saying that the medium of the text is just as important as the content. I agree that this definition is more useful than the more common definition of new media as digital media. I think that Wysocki is right to make this distinction: an essay in PDF form is not “new media” simply because it is on a computer. It is essentially the same text. But I think a PDF with links, or images, or other digital aspects should be considered new media, even if the text does not explicitly reference its own medium.
Should this blog not be considered new media unless it references its own nature as a blog? Should it be considered new media simply because it does?
Perhaps more useful would be to define a text as “new media” if it uses its medium in such a way that another medium could not adequately do the same job. A film could not be printed as an essay and retain all the same nuances. A webpage could not be made into a photograph, and a journal article could not be turned into an interpretive dance. Certainly these various media allow for unique modes of communication, and I think that this uniqueness is more useful than reflexivity for discussing new media. Reflexivity is certainly interesting (and I think reflexive texts would fit under my vague definition above), but I don’t think Wysocki’s definition is inclusive enough.
Matt, I gathered that the kind of materiality of new media that you talk about in the final paragraph is in fact the kind of materiality that Wysocki is pointing to as well. There is a good chance that I missed something in the piece or misinterpreted her work, but I think that in fact you guys are kind of agreeing with one another.
ReplyDeleteWhen Wysocki writes, "...we should call 'new media texts' those that have been made by composers who are aware of the range of materialities of texts and who then highlight the materiality..." (15), I don't really think she is suggesting that all new media texts have to be explicitly self-referential. Your blog does not have to mention it is a blog to be considered new media. Instead, I see her saying that new media texts consciously utilize the materiality of the media. In this way, your blog might be new media for the very fact that it involves "things" that a physical journal might not: hyperlinks, opportunity for electronic comment, capabilities to be shared on social media sites, embedded video, etc.
Another thing that your post really brought for me was the role of the composer versus the role of the receiver. And this is maybe one area Wysocki doesn't explore enough. Her definition of new media seems to focus on the act of composition and so then also, on the actual person doing the composing. However, your PDF example above (the idea that a PDF is not new media simply because it is displayed on the computer) made me think about the person who is consuming the PDF. Is that person's experience consuming the PDF different than if that person printed it out and read it that version? Because certainly the materiality of the composition, first as a PDF and then as a printed document are different, and likely would be read in different circumstances. On screen, the PDF might be consumed as a window in a multi-window display; in hand, the printed document might be consumed more independently. Does this difference of experience, based on the explicit materiality of the object (it's content is the same in both cases) change the relationship of the consumer to the object? And if so, can it then be thought of as "new media?" I want to say yes. But I am not completely sure because this reasoning could also then be used to say that a film consumed in a movie theater is different than a film consumed on your ipod. For some reason the PDF example is easier for me stand by.
I agree. Shortly after finishing my blog I decided that Wysocki probably means something like what I said at the end of my original post, but by then I was neck deep in some other reading and never got around to coming back to this one. I guess my point then would be that if she is going to the trouble of creating a "definition" for new media, I would like it to be slightly less obtuse, and easier to understand. Her definition does require the author of a text to "highlight the materiality." To me (and, probably, Wysocki) this means using an attribute of the material that is somewhat unique to it, but I think her definition could just say that instead of getting caught up in extra suffixes for the word "material."
ReplyDeleteAs for a text viewed in different circumstances, I don't think Wysocki really considers this. Is a film viewed in a theater the same film viewed on an iPod? David Lynch would say "hell no," but I'm not exactly sure. The "text" is the same - I don't think size can really change that. But the viewing experience is completely different. I think this has more to do with the material, which a text could choose to highlight. The reader/viewer has a different experience, and by designing a film for either venue, the author could "highlight the materiality" of that venue.