(For those not in NMD498, this is part of an assignment where we look at "Definitions" of new media by various people, and then decide whether our project fits within these definitions, and if we actually agree with the definitions.)
A. According to Vin Crosbie’s definition of new media (or the New Medium, as he’d like it to be called), my project has next to nothing to do with new media. My project involves films and creating a media room, where people will come in and view what the museum wants them to see. This is one-to-many communication, certainly not many-to-many communication. The only part of the project that could conceivably end up being many-to-many is my plans to possibly revamp the museum website, and create a page for them on Facebook. The only way that I can think of to bring my project more in line with his idea of many-to-many communication is to involve the Patten community directly in how the museum films are made, such as asking the town about the content and direction they wish to see me take. I suppose I could also consider my plan to educate the community about my films and the process which I took to create them as a form of many-to-many communication.
B. While I can understand Crosbie’s definition, I feel that calling the “new medium” simply many-to-many communication is both limiting, and also nowhere near what constitutes what we create as “new media” today. Perhaps the only reason why many-to-many communication seems limiting is because of the fact that we don’t really consider that as our key definition of new media in our classes. To me, it feels more like our “new media” is about creating new and innovative ways of expression, regardless of whether it’s one-to-many or many-to-many or many-to-one or whatever other kinds of expression models there might be. I do, however, believe new media has a strong focus on community these days, and a community is a perfect example of many-to-many communication. In a community, people stay connected… so perhaps this is the sense in which I should take Crosbie’s definition.
Showing posts with label new media definitions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label new media definitions. Show all posts
Friday, September 3, 2010
New Media Definitions, Part 2: Henry Jenkins
(for anyone reading that isn't in NMD498, this is part of an assignment where we read portions of "definitions" of new media, and then decide whether our project fits these definitions, and then if we agree with the definitions.)
A. On Henry Jenkins’ definition of new media, I think my capstone is a little lacking. I feel that my capstone best fulfills his definitions in convergence. I plan to hit as many new and old media outlets as I possibly can in developing a promotional plan for the museum’s media room, as well as for the museum itself. All of the different areas of media will come together, so that there should be no way that people can “escape” knowing about my project. Otherwise, I think my capstone is lacking on just about every single one of his new media traits. Perhaps the most glaring omission is in innovation… simply put, my capstone isn’t really innovating anything. It’s innovative in the sense that the small-town museum will be getting a great deal of media content, the likes of which they will have never had before, but it isn’t breaking any new ground in the field at large. Perhaps my project needs something more innovative, even if in a small-town way, to make it more new media and more acceptable as a capstone. I may have to dig deep into my stash of ideas inside my brain to try to come up with something dramatically new and different to add in.
B. On the whole, I think that Jenkins’ traits are fairly accurate as to the current trends of New Media. However, the “unequal” trait seems to contradict somewhat with the trend towards communities that I have noticed in new media. Throughout the past year, especially, everything new media has a community attached to it. Everyone has to have a social networking component attached to whatever they’re trying to do. While in many ways the world of the Internet, if not new media as a whole, is unequal, there is now a great push for people to join into more and more communities. The nature of these communities, to me, is that anyone can join into them and not be at any kind of disadvantage. While there are people who may have thousands of pictures and “friends” on Facebook, all it takes is a simple click for you to either become their friend, or they to ask to become yours. It seems to me that the idea of inequality is beginning to fall by the wayside.
A. On Henry Jenkins’ definition of new media, I think my capstone is a little lacking. I feel that my capstone best fulfills his definitions in convergence. I plan to hit as many new and old media outlets as I possibly can in developing a promotional plan for the museum’s media room, as well as for the museum itself. All of the different areas of media will come together, so that there should be no way that people can “escape” knowing about my project. Otherwise, I think my capstone is lacking on just about every single one of his new media traits. Perhaps the most glaring omission is in innovation… simply put, my capstone isn’t really innovating anything. It’s innovative in the sense that the small-town museum will be getting a great deal of media content, the likes of which they will have never had before, but it isn’t breaking any new ground in the field at large. Perhaps my project needs something more innovative, even if in a small-town way, to make it more new media and more acceptable as a capstone. I may have to dig deep into my stash of ideas inside my brain to try to come up with something dramatically new and different to add in.
B. On the whole, I think that Jenkins’ traits are fairly accurate as to the current trends of New Media. However, the “unequal” trait seems to contradict somewhat with the trend towards communities that I have noticed in new media. Throughout the past year, especially, everything new media has a community attached to it. Everyone has to have a social networking component attached to whatever they’re trying to do. While in many ways the world of the Internet, if not new media as a whole, is unequal, there is now a great push for people to join into more and more communities. The nature of these communities, to me, is that anyone can join into them and not be at any kind of disadvantage. While there are people who may have thousands of pictures and “friends” on Facebook, all it takes is a simple click for you to either become their friend, or they to ask to become yours. It seems to me that the idea of inequality is beginning to fall by the wayside.
New Media Definitions, Part 1: Lev Manovich
(for anyone reading that isn't in NMD498, this is part of an assignment where we read portions of "definitions" of new media, and then decide whether our project fit these definitions, and then if we agree with the definitions.)
A. In the terms of Manovich’s definition of New Media, I feel my project does hold up in several ways. One of the strongest comparisons to the definition is in the project’s modularity (the second of Manovich’s principles). I envision the project as having several different components, including films and picture slideshows, each of which can stand alone or be combined or used in many different ways. Beyond this, the initial video files and photos can be taken away from the whole and used and recombined in new and different ways. Depending on what is necessary for the museum, the project can be very modular indeed. If I had to choose an element that my project does not excel in according to Manovich’s definition, it would definitely be in automation. There will certainly be some automation used in the project, considering I’ll be using today’s current and most powerful video editing software to edit videos, and there will be many simple tasks handled by the computer. But beyond that, there is not much automation that will be seen by the end user. They will sit in front of a TV and watch a video, or watch a slideshow, or something else… in other words, the experience will be human-controlled. I don’t know if I could really add any sort of extra automation in, considering the museum will want to control the experience. However, I think that may be where I would start to look in order to bring my project more towards Manovich’s definition.
B. For the most part, I would also agree with many of the points that Manovich brings up. Modularity (including the idea of remix) has always seemed to me to be a large part of what we are taught in New Media classes. I also agree with his idea of media becoming programmable, and changeable in a very deep level thanks to computers. Beyond even interaction with our media, before new media we were never really able to change and manipulate what we see and hear and work with as much as we can now. However, I do disagree with the idea of automation being key to new media as a whole. Many different things to do with new media can be automated, but I really can’t see it as being key to the definition of a new media work. Unless, of course, we count the simple automation of common tasks by a computer to be all the automation necessary to define a work as an automated work of new media… in which case I would agree and say that most any piece you could consider new media has been automated.
A. In the terms of Manovich’s definition of New Media, I feel my project does hold up in several ways. One of the strongest comparisons to the definition is in the project’s modularity (the second of Manovich’s principles). I envision the project as having several different components, including films and picture slideshows, each of which can stand alone or be combined or used in many different ways. Beyond this, the initial video files and photos can be taken away from the whole and used and recombined in new and different ways. Depending on what is necessary for the museum, the project can be very modular indeed. If I had to choose an element that my project does not excel in according to Manovich’s definition, it would definitely be in automation. There will certainly be some automation used in the project, considering I’ll be using today’s current and most powerful video editing software to edit videos, and there will be many simple tasks handled by the computer. But beyond that, there is not much automation that will be seen by the end user. They will sit in front of a TV and watch a video, or watch a slideshow, or something else… in other words, the experience will be human-controlled. I don’t know if I could really add any sort of extra automation in, considering the museum will want to control the experience. However, I think that may be where I would start to look in order to bring my project more towards Manovich’s definition.
B. For the most part, I would also agree with many of the points that Manovich brings up. Modularity (including the idea of remix) has always seemed to me to be a large part of what we are taught in New Media classes. I also agree with his idea of media becoming programmable, and changeable in a very deep level thanks to computers. Beyond even interaction with our media, before new media we were never really able to change and manipulate what we see and hear and work with as much as we can now. However, I do disagree with the idea of automation being key to new media as a whole. Many different things to do with new media can be automated, but I really can’t see it as being key to the definition of a new media work. Unless, of course, we count the simple automation of common tasks by a computer to be all the automation necessary to define a work as an automated work of new media… in which case I would agree and say that most any piece you could consider new media has been automated.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)