The reading was certainly tough for me. I had to read things a few times to grasp some of it, and other parts I am still unsure of. But all in all, I think I understood--the idea that the machine is not necessarily the medium, but what one does with the machine is and that carries out the message. Like when the author was talking about the electric light and how without it, certain situations would not exist--such as the night baseball game--thus, I gathered that it is a medium because it would aid sight and allow one to expand beyond his normal capabilities. For me, the author did get a little wordy and I could not quite make sense of what he was getting at. It doesn't really seem like a difficult concept, but somehow, he made it hard for me to initially understand.
Really, I think actually having to come up with my own medium for the first project helped me realize how so many things can act as a medium. That's why, for me, it was difficult to come up with an idea that was expansive and would extend one's limits and senses. Overall, it's really interesting think about how the senses and communication are extended by so many things in our everyday lives.
7 comments:
So I'm not really sure how to create my own little thing with a title and everything so i will comment off of this one. I also found this reading kinda hard to grasp. I started out following it and then I reached the last page and realized that I hadn't retained any of the information I had just read so I had to reread it again.. and again. but really the message of the reading was the title. The Medium is the Message. lIke it said that Napoleon had said that 3 hostile newspapers are more to be feared then a thousand bayonets. I interpret this in the reading as him saying that they hostile newspapers are to be feared because they will get to more people and make them angry towards Napoleon where as the bayonets will do nothing without angry people who read the newspapers behind them. there for the medium of the angry paper is the message.
That is pretty much what I got out of the reading.
oh and I also wanted to say that the electric light thing and playing baseball outside at night isn't necessarily true because if you stay outside in the dark your vision adjusts especially if the moon is out and your in the middle of a baseball field.. it shouldn't be that hard to see.
i see where kate is coming from by saying the reading was a little tough. it also took me a long time to come up with an idea for the project because it seems like almost everything is a medium, or could be argued, i'm not sure.
a part of the reading that I can grasp is when he was giving the example of the railroad and how it didnt communicate transportation to the world but extended ourselves as humans by transporting more people, having more jobs, etc. that example i did understand.
maybe its just the way i read, but as i was reading i wouldn't be understanding and then i come up to a sentence that just clears something up for me. so again, i can see where kate is coming from calling this reading a little wordy. but then, when he throws in shakespeare, that just didnt help me at all. i read the quotes but i could never analyze shakespeare so i definitely couldnt try and figure out how he was relating shakespeares lines to mediums.
not a very great response, overall the reading was hard for me, so i'm looking forward to hearing what everyone else has to say and possibly who can help clear this up for me. hopefully i'm not the only one getting lost in this!
There is absolutely no doubt that this McLuhan, "the high priest of pop culture", knows exactly what he is talking about. I, on the other hand, may not have understood everything that he stated so wordily but i think i got the over all vibe; mediums are everywhere and we as a society and culture need to anticipate the effects of a new media.
I also find the fact that this was written before this era of extreme media changes. And all the "funny" tid bits of one quirky quotes also caught my eye, like with the chicken and egg comment and the references to shakespeare talkin' about the light of a TV shining through juliet's window.
His comments on "content" also seemed to be important-yet insanely wordy and full of writer's fluff- with the electric age and computers and whatnot-the saying , "mediums are the message" actually works...actually honestly...i do NOT know what i am talking about in this section. i just reread a damn paragraph like 5 times and still it makes maybe a minuscule amount of sense to me!
perhaps a nice short and clear and concise class discussion on this reading would help clear my mind and thoughts on this tedious subject. don't worry jessica ... you are def not alone.
please excuse my terrible grammar too --.-- i just reread this and yah...i forgot a few words.
I agree with about the reading being a bit difficult. I felt like I would start to understand it, like with his media vs. content idea, but then somewhere along the way I'd get lost again.
What I grasped from the text was that McLuhan was arguing that the media is if most importance, not that content. The content derives from the medium, and therefore the medium itself should be the main focus?
Relating to Jessica, I felt the the example of the railroad started to clarify what he was saying, but then he brought up the airplane which completely threw me off once more. The railroad did serve as an extension of ourselves by increasing mobility and in his words "enlarged the scale of previous human functions". But what I seem to be lost at is why is an airplane so different? I guess I fail to see how an airplane doesn't do the same...
I don't mean over analyze such a tiny portion of the text. But like Jessica said, the railroad portion was one of the only parts I felt like I semi understood, but just as I was starting to understand the airplane got thrown in.
Overall, the reading was pretty difficult for me to fully understand. I think the class discussion will help clarify everything.
I really dislike when authors continuously rephrase the same thoughts in multiple paragraphs. It just seems like McLuhan was trying to fill more pages than he needed, but at the same time I understood what he was saying. I understand his main point about the medium itself being more important than the content, but I started to read further into the text. I took the essay to say that the medium is more important than the content because the content has always existed. The medium is only furthering a content that has always been there but perhaps hasn't been accessible. The railroad example was key in this idea. He said that the railroad did not introduce movement or transportation, but that it amplified existing human relationships. It's a slightly depressing idea--that no new mediums can be created, no new method of transportation or communication can be invented, everything already exists and can only be accelerated or emphasized.
I do also agree that this reading was pretty dense and hard 2 drudge through, but I believe (I think) I have deciphered the issue that McLuchan is addressing. He makes the point that no meaning or effect can exist without the material that it is transferred through. The most concrete metaphor that I found was the one that stated that firearms are neither good nor bad, it is how they are used that decides their effect. How a certain material or medium is used will determine the message that it conveys.
Post a Comment