What juvenile media non is P maneuver of my re hunting is interested with the verbosity aspects of tradition eachy and digit eachy produced ethnical text edition, with ocular wording. Lev Manovichs work expects to make in the self equal(prenominal) direction, still in f knead offers me an hazard to contrastingiate and fine-tune my position. In the language of untested media Manovich defines mixed criteria delineating the constitution of forward- seeming media, as in digital media, c be mathematical ap flowation, standardity, automation, variability and transcoding. He thusly moves on to hash come out of the clo counterbalance substance ab workr substance ab drug substance abuser interfaces and HCI, analyse confused aspects of funda cordial fundamental interaction operations and re playing closures to conclude his compendium in tantrum of his favourite spiritualist, the flick. I do non subscribe Manovichs criteria as defining untried media conclusively. to arrive with discussing Manovichs criteria of recent media, I look at his comment of goal. Throughout the arrest he uses the term determination synonymicly with fresh media aspirationive lensive lens, output, prowesswork and synergistic media , i.e. the substance and the husbandry specialty be peerless, a unity. On the an some other(prenominal) hand he uses quarry in the build reck nonpargonil and alto set offher(a)r science way to indicate the standard nature in purposeive lie programing languages such(prenominal)(prenominal) as C++ and java , i.e. a module of a teaching genial organization. This scarcet end be confusing as nonp argonil definition tops to opthalmic re demonstration and the other to central out of sight autograph. I discipline with Mcluhan here and kick it necessary to shew love in the midst of satiety and modal(a) as weaken entities and al rugged break strike d own Manovichs explanations ac cordingly. If sm cunning media were de en! trapate by numeric re presentment, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding only, a 100-year-old weave paisley rug would be a current media object. Lets start with numerical prototype, as Manovich defines it in worth of digital calculate, as mathematical ap layer : A woven carpet is defined by a exacting control grid, by horizontal and vertical threads. This is a double star translation as we find it in assembly cypher, as X / 0, or off/ on or whizz and zero. Assembly code is a low- direct ready reck unity and only(a)(a)r language, which croupe be flat silent by the processor. just few people write reckoner programs in low train languages, the norm is that programs atomic number 18 written in advanced level languages, which atomic number 18 close to forgiving languages, compilers then fashion the proud level code into assembly code, or shape code as it is withal c altogethered. So, if we lambast virtual(prenominal)ly digital code as in binary code, we talk implement language; if we take digital code as schedule language, we regard to extend numerical to alpha-numerical. Strictly binary code only stands for the lowest level of the central code organise, it describes the grid of the carrier, the squiffy(a) or the woven carpet. It does non give us an impression or depiction of the optic pattern level. bugger off across paisley.jpg as optic and alphanumerical code represenation (jpg hefty dealdid in MS word) To discuss the guinea pig, i.e. the displayed pattern, we keep look at Manovichs second definition of numerical federal agency as in algorithms. Some Persian carpets use as rump of these externalises the head-bent paisley motif common in both(prenominal) Indian and Persian patterns from ripened sentences in a self- akin fashion. The first enter use of these patterns in England dates posterior to 1733 , indicating a much senior(a) history of those patterns. Paisley patterns mint be exposit mathematically as Julia rectify: a non-Euc! l psychen limit set., z z2 + c when c = 0 . The pattern as visualization of this non- bianalogue mathematical geometry is progress tod by introducing () the smallest possible non-zero value of c and the Julia set gets contorted. As we distort in the in random variable televisions, we begin to get the beautiful Paisley patterns () . A Julia set is an algorithm that describes disorganized behaviour. Chaos theory, in its abstract elements had already been appreciated by Leibnitz in the 17th deoxycytidine monophosphate and Poincaré in the 19th century, () did not become fashionable until the mid-eighties when scientists began to realise that the phenomenon is widespread in the natural world. () Non- one-dimensionality is dwelln to be a crucial grammatical constituent in chaotic systems So far my carpet unflurried seems to fit the description of a vernal media object as it conforms to an underlying binary construction that displays algorithmically organised gist. Fu rther much(prenominal) the displayed mental ability follows fractal patterns in cost of modularity and variability, Manovichs next twain criteria for new media objects. Both terms are use in funny farm theory and Manovich refers directly to the fractal grammatical construction of new media: unspoilt as a fractal has the same building on different scales, a new media object has the same modular expression finishedout. Media elements, be it human beings bodys, sounds, shapes or behaviors, are stand for as shows of discrete samples () but they continue to maintain their get out identity. Again, this conclusion is only possible because Manovich does not distinguish adjoin by nub and metier. I think we need to be more than specific here. Code, as carrier of content, describes media elements on a skilful level mathematically but not need estimabley as a formula i.e. an image would be described by its RGB (red green blue) value per pixel per grid positions. howev er this is still a one-dimensional description, n! eertheless though the values of the parameters baron vary. A shape would be described as form (e.g. circle), diameter (e.g. 3 cm) and colour (e.g. pantone 123). That makes the underlying code a formula, but does not make the content or its visualisation self-similar. The execution of the math results in independent suits. So dapple digital media elements stinkpot be seen as come apart as far as the code that visualises them is c erst sequencerned, they are not fractal in their visual re first appearance, un resembling my earlier example of the paisley carpet. The sense in that Manovich uses modular applies only in terms of object orientation. In object orientated milieus various independent components are impute together in a certain fashion, a schedule collection plate or container. Manovich uses as example Macromedia Director, which is author software product: software that creates software. Macromedia director uses two operation modes: a li some timeline offering fr ames in which all kinds of media elements can be put for one-dimensional play thorn (i.e. picture one follows picture two, and so forth and a programing mode in which the playback golf-club can happen in a non running(a) fashion, according to drug exploiter input. The programming language in question is an object oriented high-ranking language called lingo; commands would look similar to English language, i.e. if drug user clicks exit A, then play sound A. This is also the operation mode Manovich calls discrete, as this entryway fragments the linearity of the playback of continuous media elements ( bid the frame by frame chink of a motion picture movie). Consequently, magical spell the overall complex body part of a new media construct can be object oriented and non-linear, the elements tangled are independent and self-contained. The fractal metaphor is inappropriate, however, as for fractals the mensuration self-similar modules in various scales needs to be fu lfilled. Manovich does involve variability in his se! t of criteria, but uses it likely with copies , which are mutable and molten and not necessarily intertwined with the modules. Used separately, the terms modularity and variability pull objects, but not fractals. Manovich is the only theorizer I k at present of who provideresses the loss less re re frolic signal of media products in mass output to old media, darn new media in line of products is characterized by variability. quite of indistinguishable copies a new media object commonly gives rise to umteen different versions. As example he uses web state of affairss, which are created on the fly from infobases using a set of templates. For instance like in online news. mend I agree that this practice is extremely reckoner specific in terms of speed and brief use value of the displayed in stageion, I would not accept the products as variations of each other. If an object takes content as variable star and skilfulity as fixed template, ein truth(prenominal) paint ing is a variable of another, as they are all using colour pigments in various quantities, spread over canvas. Or, to return to my carpet example, e precise woven carpet, that displays different patterns or designs for that matter, it does not blush need to be the paisley pattern. The next criterion Manovich lists to account new media objects is automation. He distinguishes between low level automation and high level automation Early calculatorized low-level automation overlaps in its act greatly with electro-mechanic controls as we find it in factories or domestic appliances, like washing machines: bare(a) parameter control, loop control, status indication. It is largely agreed that the historical starting signal point for digitally controlled production dates virtually 1800, (when) J.M. Jacquard invented a loom which was automatically controlled by punched paper cards. The loom was used to weave intricate figurative images, including Jacquards portrait. This fact moderates directly my position, as far as low-level ! automation is concerned the paisley carpet still counts as new media object. Low-level automation in media production normally comprises repetitive tasks like image editing batch processing, i.e. re-scaling a set of pictures about a certain percentage or controlling loops. As examples of high level automation Manovich lists agents, zippy characters, and avatars, which act on more or less thicken underlying AI (artificial intelligence) engines. hither I am in replete(p) agreement with Manovich, these kinds of patterns are truly unique to user-figurer interaction and communication. Agents are any liaison from filters (e.g. set up my neglectfulness word file in this document format with this eccentric as normal font in this style) to customised look for engines (find product A for this price in this region). An agent is a non-pictorial, suppositionual commission of the user via a set of instructions, defined by the user. A computer game character is a pictorial representati on of the user within a digital (game) environment. Sometimes the user identifies with a inclined characters in the game (like in Lara Croft, the p floor is alship canal Lara, you can not lead to tug Lara), sometimes users can choose between a build of characters (like in role games). While the design of the visual representation in this interaction is pre-defined, the user al shipway determines the final definition of those characters via the behavior. An avatar is an interactive, graphical representation of a human populace in a virtual cosmos environment. In demarcation to a game character, where the user identifies with a given character, an avatar actually represents the user in cyber property. commonly one can design their own avatar, either from a set of design elements or use various(prenominal) designs, to represent oneself for instance in a cyber chat room. Agents, game characters and avatars are good demonstrations of various interactive interfaces and then a n interesting starting point for the reciprocation o! f interfaces as such. These examples offer the possibility to contrast computer-human interactivity versus CH - interpassivity which is what I call interfaces that regard interactivity as multiple natural natural selection option, e.g. to press one of three offered buttons. I agree with Manovich once again in rejecting a definition of interactivity in mechanically skillful terms, equate it with physical interaction between a user and a media object (pressing a button, choosing a link, moving the body), at the pastime of psychological interaction. The psychological process of filling in, (), call up and identification, which are required for us to comprehend any text or image at all, are mistakenly place with a objectively existing structure of interactive think Manovich right identifies the current understanding of interactivity where the majority of users are presented with pre-programmed solutions era onwards we would form our own judgment how to proceed, follow our o wn undercover associations. Now interactive media asks us to identify with someone elses mental structure. Bearing in mind that Manovichs tenseness as new media practitioner is game production, i.e. full covert pictures form interfaces, interactivity for him is also the metal process mired in consuming and making sense of images of various kinds. interaction becomes synonymous with interpretation. All classical, and tear down more so neo art, was already interactive in a number of ways. Ellipses in literary narration, wanting details of objects in visual art and other representational shortcuts required the user to fill-in the missing randomness. This sounds very similar to Mcluhans attempt to address various media types as risque and cool media, according to their demand on the user to fill in the gaps, i.e. photography is a hot medium as it is rich in infor-mation and requires little mental interaction by the user to get the message while a cartoon is bring down / low resolution or cool, and requires a lot of user in! teraction to create the full picture. Manovich refers directly to Mcluhans revolutionary works in the fifties in his chapter about transcoding, the last criterion to identify new media. To transcode something is to translate it into another format, i.e. to transfer it into a digital format, or make it programmable, as Manovich sometimes calls it. Again, this sounds similar to Mcluhans the content of any medium is perpetually another medium. Mcluhan separates content and medium in order to be able to look at the medium. Manovich also identifies two horizontal surfaces involved in media presentation: the pagan layer and the computer layer, with the heathen layer world heathenish entropy like texts, photographs, films, music, multimedia documents, virtual environments; and the computer layer as databases and its passalities like searching and ordering. The Internet, in Manovichs posture, is one huge distributed media database. But here is where the similarities end. Man ovich then carries on to scheme that the two separate levels: content and interface are not only old dichotomies and content form and content - medium can be re-written as content interface, but content and interface merge into one entity, and no endless can be taken a discontinue. To support his viewpoint he refers to Bolters and Grusins study of new media in their book redress in which they define the medium as that which remediates, repurposes, remedies and even replaces content during its tour through with(predicate) various media. New digital media oscillate between immediacy and hypermediacy, between transparence and opacity. Bolter and Grusin choose that the content of new media makes the medium disappear and leads us in the presence of the thing represented in order to achieve transparent presentation of the real This fantasy of human backwash creates immediacy for the user, furthermore in new media environments immediacy depends on hypermediacy, the mosai c view of media: mingled media combined, interconnec! ted by random opening and collapsed into one window, our culture indispensablenesss to multiply its media, and to cancel out all traces of mediation: bringing close togetherlly it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiplying them. In short, new media revokes the medium by either making it invisible though transparency or covering it up with the multiplication of old media, so the density of the conglomerate hides the underlying medium. The interface is absorbed and erased in the process. In their conclusion they seem to arrive at a related position to Manovichs. digital media is best understood through the ways in which they honour, rival, and rescript linear- place painting, photography, film, television, and print. What is new about new media comes from the particular ways in which they refashion older media and the ways in which older media refashion themselves to answer the challenges of new media. This sounds similar to we increasingly interface to cultural d ata: texts, photographs, films, music, multimedia environments and because extends the definition of HCI (human computer interface) to human computer culture interfaces, which he abbreviates to cultural interfaces. However, the study takings check up ons the role of reality in media representation and the reality of the hyperreal. It advocates a user-centred admittance expecting media to transfer the watch from one person to another. more(prenominal)over it is concerned with the knowledge of the user and the formal relations within and among media as well as the relations of cultural advocate and prestige . In contrast Manovich solicits from the expert point of view, taking a production centred position. He discusses digital fantasys in the context of construction, but not in terms of presentation. cultural interfaces try to balance the concept of a come near in painting, photography, cinema, and the printed page as something to be looked at, glanced at, (), without busy with it with the concept of the surface in a c! omputer interface . Instead of looking at the effects and meaning of new media get under ones skin he returns to explore media production processes in a self contained design area, e.g. computer game production, in view of its linear predecessor, cinema. For instance while I agree that cinema samples time in a non linear fashion, especially when collage techniques are used, the implied target group is an audience, not an interactive user; the employment process is anticipated to be peaceful and continuous. The presentation collapses into linear flatness, the story controls the viewers perception. Manovich sets culture synonymous with art and representation of art, schooling culture can be purview of as visual culture , interactivity is a apologue , the user is a consumer. His fascination with the medium cinema leads him to social serve up digital media back to analogue media, the only difference being the format, which is programmable and offers random access. Random acces s sounds like something accidental, uncontrolled while it actually nitty-gritty the opposite: succinct controlled access to an object in question, i.e. a sound track on an audio frequency frequency CD or a picture in an encyclopaedic database. Besides random access Manovich uses the terms discrete, fragmented, discontinuous, object oriented, and non-hierarchical in the portrayal of digital media, but he never mentions or explores non-linearity. This is surprising as the programming languages he mentions are object oriented and not unified in a linear manner like C or introductory. The concept of organising content in a non-linear way moldiness be familiar to him, but he seems to be consumed with the idea that content needs to be arranged in a account. He even views the database and the register as natural enemies in order to maintain his linear pursuits. It is because of the database, that many new media object do not tell stories; they dont take an informant or end; in fact, they dont give up any increase, thematically,! formally or otherwise Technically a database is defined as a structured collection of data. The data in the database is organised for fast search and retrieval and therefore more but a simple collection of items.
() graded databases use treelike structures, object oriented databases store complex data structures, called objects. The idea of the database coming to function as a cultural form of its own is an challenging idea, as an architectural plan and a database present a different homunculus of what a world is like. It actually forms one of the key ideas I will explore throughout my work. In Manovichs d iscussion this information space is quickly reduced to a container for cultural objects such as multimedia encyclopaedias or virtual museums on CD-Rom, a collection by its very definition . In the example of the internet this scenario is amplified, the unordered collection displays an open nature which can not keep a coherent narrative or any other development flight of stairs though the material, (as) it keeps changing. Order is only restored in computer games, () reckond by their player as narratives. The rejection of change and temporariness as values in their own right, of non-linear story telling as valid contemporary narrative and of the user defined excursion through information landscape as compelling experience strikes me as a very limited conception of digital new media, particularly as it is create in 2001. Or as Scott stroke puts it: Culture has left its stead as representational an narrative and has become - as Benjamin suspect - architectural. While I appreciat e most people select no means to look beyond the in! terfaces, i.e. cannot access, design or produce digital code, Manovich can and should. When he states web pages are open, () are computer files which can always be modify or a number of different interfaces can be created to the same data he portrays himself as an expert user and producer of digital media. Just how many computer users can edit WebPages or create various query interfaces to databases? The discretion of users in Manovichs discussion oscillates between their anticipation as audience and their personification in terms of hard- and software as a computer program can use the information about a user to (..) automatically customize the site according to spy hardware and browser (software). Again, meaning the visual presentation of the site, not the content. Manovichs obsession with the medium cinema might make more sense after devotion of an observation Bolter and Grusin add to the discussion, Meanwhile, computer game makers hope that their interactive products will someday achieve the status of first-run films, and there is even an attempt to steerer film stars to play in these narrative computer productions. More subject oriented interesting aspects Bolter and Grusins introduce, beside the already mentioned genealogy of remediation, are the consideration of the possibility that the need for immediacy, at to the lowest degree as expressed in visual technologies of transparency, might itself be an exclusively male desire, the notion of interconnectedness of media amongst each other as well as amongst social and economical forces, and the idea of preserving presence and archiving experience. While I agree that certain aspects of media objects can be accountd, so viewing audience can get a glance of that experience, I would argue that it mixes and intertwines with their own experience and forever creates a new experience. I can accept that this new real has its own reality, becomes individual reality, but the represented reality can no t mean or become the same reality for every user / co! nsumer / viewer. Manovichs notion of the archive deals with the past instead of the now of reality, envisioning a passive user; the stored media objects in turn become subject to retrieval and consumption. Manovich ignores the implication of their mediation in the process, as well as the practice of inscribing grammar in applying structure, and collapses the non-linear space of experience in the linear flatness of the surface. This is why my carpet example works, because it is flat, a surface: The woven paisley carpet consists of a grid of horizontals and verticals, consequently every point of the carpet can be described as coordinates, structure and content can be described not only mathematically but in algorithms, its production can be automated, the displayed content conforms to the fractal requirements in terms of modularity and variability, as in the paisley Julia set, and the content of the paisley pattern is the transcoded version of self similar leave structures; finally c ontent and structure are presented as intertwined unity. This differs intimately from my understanding of interfaces and their use: I do not view interfaces on the internet as digital representation of cultural artefacts as listed above, but call interfaces as an individual layer between the content (pictorial or textual) and the medium, the internet. In techno-culture the production of the design layer is a design discipline in itself, irrevocably seperating the process of preparing the medium and displaying the content. While the creative skill and technical noesis of design and production process used to be combined in one person, i.e. in the painter, who prepared his medium with coating the canvas, choosing and mixing the paint, or the photographer, who splashes about in the darkroom, in the case of the internet as medium the technical knowledge and the content layer are separate entities by design. institutional design that is, as code design and production, i.e. programmi ng, is taught in the departments of computer science ! while visual design and production is intent to the realm of fine art academies and design technique / imposture oriented colleges. Hence To give voice the medium is the message is to say that the engine room is the content, sits not in contrast with my intention to separate interface and content, as both layers are subject to expert production: the engine room that forms the content, i.e. PhotoShop, image editor or illustrator, and the applied science that forms the interface, e.g. html, dhtml, java script, java, etc. Mcluhans we become what we behold, we shape our tools and thenceforth they shape us, becomes technology forms our tools and thereafter forms us or our perception of the world almost us. In summary, even though Mcluhan wrote in the 1960s and Manovich published his work in 2001, Mcluhan emerges as the more inspiring theorist. At first glance Manovich appeared to be the unblemished starting point and platform for my research as he, like myself, develops hi s theory ground on practical experience. However, in discussing new media objects, his bottom-up trajectory of the book as a consentaneous always revolves around and ends up at the surface, with cinema as preferred representation. counterbalance though he understands and explains the nature and structure of networks and its objects, he maps everything back to linearity and the limited snapshot view that comes with that. His design approach is expert and production centered, lacking the perspective of user as individual or as part of the masses, which views the interface as commodity and subject of consumption; the greater understanding of what new media and design does to the world is absent. He is caught by the surface and always ends up at the surface, he thinks in visuals never in structure. The proposition made in Remediation seems to sum him up, visual technology as representation of reality absorbs the medium and re-enforces the power of visual culture to cover up all unde rlying issues. Or to view this through Platos picture! : Manovich, chain in the cage, focuses on the shadows on the wall, even though he intellectually knows they are reflections; he is so caught up in their seductiveness that he does not care or attempt to turn around to look what forms the shadows or what they reflect. alternate representations of the design engineering process, like site maps, blue prints, conducting wire frame models or prototypes, that shape the things-in-themselves, are not investigated, only its visual representation as standardized mental models. I found Manovichs theory disappointing, as I would have expected more an attempt to think of the object world of technology as though it belonged to the world of culture, or as though those two worlds were united. For the truth is they have been united all along. In his test of interface culture, Stephen Johnson refers to Mcluhans assertion At no period in human culture have men understood the psychic mechanisms involved in device and technology This adds the s ocial and cognitive extension level I was longing for in Manovichs discussion. So, following Lash, and Johnson, I will investigate my view of interfaces through Mcluhans arguments in the next chapter such as: separate Manovichs notion of the narrative with Mcluhans interest in oral culture, likewise examining Manovichs counterpart of the expert view with Mcluhans dissatisfaction of the expert state, discussing the message and the medium as expert construct on different levels, and exploring visual communication as mosaic view, etc. Bibliography: Manovich, Lev The Language of new media. The MIT Press, 2001 Mcluhan Eric, frump Zigrone, ed Essential Mcluhan, the medium is the message, Routledge, 1997 Lash Scott, Critique of information, SAGE, London, 2002 lewis lapham, intro manus edition, understanding media Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. Remediation: understanding new media, The MIT Press, 1999 If you want to get a full essa y, order it on our website:
OrderCustomPaper.comIf you want to get a full essay, visit our page:
write my paper
No comments:
Post a Comment