High Concept, Thought Style and Media Determinism

I hope you’ve all been enjoying Spring Break.

The timing of our break, following a snow-cancellation, means that we will return to class next week still trying to complete our (now, seemingly-distant) engagement with McLuhan, while also making sense of the culture industry readings (scheduled for, but unengaged, last week) and the readings on audience (slated for next week).

So, gang, in a word: we face some challenges (!)

To help us better work through and with the material, I would encourage thinking together on a few disparate (though consonant) threads.

The first is the optional article assigned for last week on “The High Concept Presidency”. Let’s ask: “how, if at all, this notion of ‘high concept’ might apply not only to politics, but to other areas of social communication today?”

And what of the future? To the degree that the notion of ‘high concept’ has crept into the present, what might the uses and effects of it be–now and moving forward, into the future?

And, looking at a question that will come to take on greater meaning when we discuss genre, narrative devices and rhetorical approaches in cultural productions, to what degree can we link the presence and use of ‘high concept’ to media form, itself? In short, is the way of thinking and explaining part and parcel of the medium it appears in, itself (or is it merely an artifact–a coincidental/accidental element)? . . . obviously examples would be beneficial in addressing this query.

Next, I was intrigued by this article on “president as publisher”. My interest was less in Donald Trump and the specifics of his live-tweeting the Comey hearing before the House Intelligence Committee than with the simple McLuhansque take on medium as message. Applied to this situation, what message does Twitter (the medium) send? What “effects” does the platform exert on society? And, is this medium merely a blip on the historical radar, or does it possess the ability (like, say, the telephone or television) to remain with us, thereby altering human practices and patterns in profound ways? In answering this question, think about the media determinism angle. What is determined, how and why?

Finally, on this matter of determinism (and in a final why-the-hell-not leap toward the kitchen sink), you might consider this article, which (taken to its extreme) might enable us to argue something in the grander scheme of things. Is it possible that this article might lead toward theorization about media form (and also content)–at least particular sorts of media. What sorts? The kind that are computationally-based (which, increasingly, comprises a growing number of media and media content). In turn, these forms (and their contents) are predicated on (hence, determined and regulated by) a particular system of thought: logical and probabilistic.

Letting the string play out, one might ask: “are all (such) media beneficiaries, but also potential victims, of a fixed way of thinking/approaching/perceiving/operating in the world?” And so, too, is our media theorization also at risk of being overly determined by reference to, fixation with, a particular thought style?

Something Cyber to Chew On

As I was reading through this article, on State-sponsored cyber interventions, I kept thinking about out modeling reading. A few questions:

  • How, if at all, do the models that McQuail introduces help explain the various communication processes (identified in this article)?
  • Would it be instructive to map the various state-sponsored activity? (Why/why not?)
  • Do the examples mentioned in this article all:
    • follow the same pattern
    • engage the same variables?
    • produce the same outcomes?
  • If so, what do:
    • the flows look like?
    • the agents?
    • the dynamics?
    • the results?

If you’d like to take a crack at it here, go for it. Otherwise, let’s add this to the list of examples/possible exercises we can address in our review segment on McQuail tomorrow.

See you then!

Remnant Considerations

Sorry to cut in on the McLuhan discussion (and thank you, Nicholas, for getting a conversation started so early), so take this as an optional diversion.

In sorting through the notes from our last class I came across a couple of questions that I thought worth pulling along with us as we move from MEDIUM FORM through ECOLOGY (and toward AUDIENCE).

The first relates to VISUALITY. It begins with Benjamin’s conception of “OPTICAL UNCONSCIOUS”. Recall that his claim was that photography exposed movements and dimensions of reality hitherto unknown (that is, not acknowledged by perception). This (purportedly) has the effect of overlooking aspects of reality (or perhaps restricting those aspects to the realm of the unconscious). If this is true, thinking about our image-saturated society of today, do you think this idea still holds? Are there aspects of “reality” that often go undetected; that are not retained or perhaps not processed by the person engaging with the medium?

A second point about VISUALITY is inspired by Ong. As you know, his writing focuses our attention on cultures that are predicated on and evolve consistent with ORALITY or LITERACY. The question is what about VISUALITY? Similar to the oral and written, does IMAGE have (any or the same sort of profound) influence on:

  • consciousness
  • communication
  • interaction
  • social organization
  • action

In this way, might we talk about a “CULTURE OF VISUALITY” the way that we discuss a CULTURE OF ORALITY and CULTURE OF WRITING?

Finally, and part of this latter discussion, if PRIMARY ORALITY fosters personality structures that in certain ways are more communal, externalized and less introspective than those common among literates–in short, if oral communication unites people in groups–and if writing and reading are solitary activities that throw the psyche back on itself–what does VISUALITY do? Is it simply a variation on SECONDARY ORALITY, or is it something else entirely? If the latter, does it pose (psychological, social, structural, behavioral, phenomenological, moral) issues that require a different sort of social theorization than Ong forwarded?

Just a few extra possibilities for you to reason through together.

Odds and Ends: Theorizing “False News”, “Digital Aura”, Ong and Hypertext

Driving home from class last night I was replaying our conversations (as I generally do–I hope you all do, to some degree, too!).

One conversation centered on the Time-Out on “theory-testing” versus “theory-building”. I hope it was clear that the “levels of theorization” (macro, middle-range, micro) are (somehow) related to the selection of intellectual strategy: deductive versus inductive. While these are not fully linked/dependent elements, they are not mutually exclusive either.

Hence, if one is operating inductively–selecting evidence of “false news” (whatever that is) or (working perhaps more productively) collecting any news, then seeking to evaluate which bin (“false”, “truthful”) it belongs in–you may be able to work your way up to a middle range theorization (a “system”, say, or an “institution”, for example, or maybe a socio-cultural “milieu”); whether you can get to a macro (i.e. general, total, uniform) level of explanation is less clear/unlikely, but at least you’ve moved from evidence to some sort of “theorization”.

By the same token, I am skeptical that “fake news” can work top-down as a grand/macro theorization (since, it seems more likely evidence of a larger, but different phenomenon). Stated alternatively, while fake news may facilitate testing of some sort of theory regarding media, that theory would seem to be about something larger than fake news, itself. As such, fake news would be the phenomenon, but the architecture or structural dynamics generating that phenomena would likely be something different. In any case, in a theory-testing approach, fake news might be an aspect of this larger something that you would be focusing on as you sought to confirm or reject the hypothesis you had formulated about that larger thing.

So, bottom line, the study of “fake news” may belong in media theorization, but its actual place in/relationship to media theory is less clear.

One thing that I would encourage you all to do, though, is to keep the topic somewhere near the fore of consciousness as we enter the effects, political economy and audience sections of our reading. It ought to gain in both dimension and relevance, moving forward.

Continue reading

Berger, on “The Art of Seeing”

Class ended last night before we could debrief regarding the film we watched: part I of the BBC documentary, The Art of Seeing. I wonder what some of your thoughts/takeaways might have been?

From a pedagogical perspective, my hope is that you could peer beyond the quaint 1970s patterned shirts, flared pants and shaggy hair styles and hear beneath the distracting pops, hisses and crackles of the crude video copy to truly “see”. What did I hope might have come into focus?

  • the idea of decomposing a larger tableaux, for one. Of being able to tell multiple (not necessarily consonant) stories by simply shifting the frame or isolating a particular aspect of content within any single “mediation”.
  • or how about recognizing that an image may speak to us in different ways if it is viewed in silence ; then, again, when viewed accompanied by varying sonorities (narration, a canned soundtrack, electronic compositions, a range of genres from opera to classical/chamber to jazz to pop).
  • how about the idea that the meaning of images (or moving visuals or other media products) can be influenced by the products that are sampled before or after our encounter with them; in short, that there is a “modifier effect” at work when media operate or when their content is processed as part of a larger, connected fabric.
  • consider also the idea that a medium (like a church or a museum) can contain content (like frescoesor, icons or relics), but those contents, themselves, can serve as media for transmitting other messages or abetting other human (social, communication, political, economic) acts. The same is surely true for a device, like the desktop or laptop or tablet or phone that you are currently reading this message on.
  • how about the notion (undoubtedly inspired by Benjamin and reprised in slightly different form by Sontag) that reproduction has stripped works of art of their particular (i.e. individual, unique) character, while investing them with a general (i.e. widely accessible, widely-disseminated) nature, thereby enabling greater consumption, more varied uses and, potentially, even more enormous cultural power?
  • what did you make of the argument (implicit though it was) that interpretation (in the form of the written “authoritative” word) was an impediment–even a block–on sense-making? Were you persuaded by the final segment where adolescents were asked to deconstruct the signs, to decipher denotation and work toward connotation (in ways that seemed to bespeak factors like gender)? Do you suppose, I might then ask, that factors like social class or race or geographical location or political ideology might also end up influencing how one encounters media (i.e. how they “see”, “hear”, “taste”, “smell”, “feel”)?

So, that is a partial list. A good (enough) place to start, I suppose. I am sure there are some points I’ve glossed over or neglected. And I would encourage you to add to the list, if you wish.

But after that, what other steps might you take? Well, perhaps you could critically assess Berger’s claims. For instance, forty years on, do they still hold value? Apply the ideas above to specific cases taken from the sense world surrounding you. How do Berger’s ideas fare? Widen the circle beyond painting . . . are these ideas applicable to other media? Could some of the ideas above be applied to other mediations–other media and their products? And, if so, which ones, in which ways, with what observed results?

You might give that a bit of a go as the week advances. I’d be interested to learn what you discover.

Perhaps we can take this up a bit at the beginning of next Tuesday’s class.

Photography and Border Crossings

Apropos of two discussion points tonight, this photo-essay centers on life along the U.S.-Mexican border 80 years ago.

Given our discussion about capturing and reproducing reality, what are your thoughts? Keeping the Hindenburg discussion in mind (where reality was both captured, but also partially obscured), what do you think might be missing in these images? is there any way to “know” or would it all be speculation? More, to what degree do you think selectivity or framing come into play (i.e. that which is “in-frame” and also that which has been omitted/left “out-of-frame”)? And how, after 80 years, would we be able to know (one way or the other)?

The essay’s accompanying text asserts:

Lange’s images, while uniquely of their time, capture both the recognizable signs of bureaucracy and the timelessness of life on the periphery.

This harks to Carolina’s question about author’s intent. Do you find this (above) interpretation of the photographs persuasive? Or, reflective of our discussion of the recipient’s interpretive power, do you see other messages/ideas present in the photograph’s content.

Finally, do the photographs work as a unity to convey a meaning that departs from any one, in isolation. In short, like a syntagm, do the (photograph-) signs operate collectively as a system of meaning, independent of the individual (photo-) unit present within the paradigm (set)?

Ideology and Utopia

Dear FMS 040ers,

I wanted to apologize (a bit) for (the disorder of) last night–the technical glitches not only interfered with our rhythm, it also influenced our ability to work through the video examples (i.e. the empirical data that was intended to facilitate our epistemological work–to use terms from last night’s lecture). Hopefully, in subsequent classes we won’t have as much environmental interference, so that we can just roll up our sleeves and get stuff done.

So, as you saw (and heard), last night involved a goodly amount of lecture. Just so that you know, that is not my preferred style; but in this course, some amount of lecture is unavoidable. I will try to find ways around it, but (just a head’s up): on certain opaque or else congested topics, it will be unavoidable.

Apologies there, as well.

Anyway, while we are on the subject of the empirical/epistemological interface, if I might make a suggestion . . . perhaps you might care to think though the evidence provided as a means of better mastering it. For instance:

  • how does the Abbott and Costello routine help us process elements like paradigm, syntagm, convention, code, and system?
  • how do the Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders’ political ads help us understand the 3 elements of semiotics: sign, code, culture?
  • what aspects of those political ads help facilitate understanding of concepts associated with semiotics: sign, signification, denotation, connotation, constraint, motivation?
  • are elements from Plato’s allegory–form, representation, reality–discernible?
  • at a more advanced level, how would the Barthes model of connotation be applied to the political ads?

We will do a bit more work on these aspects in class next week (especially Barthes’ model of first and second order connotation)–so, head’s up there. Please feel free to work through some of these points in this space and/or post questions about this on the Wiki to help facilitate our classroom discussion next Tuesday.

One final dimension before closing . . .

Yesterday we identified a few heuristics that we might carry forth in our theorization of media, including:

  1. Plato’s allegory;
  2. Kuhn’s model of scientific (r)evolution; and
  3. Mannheim’s ideology and utopia.

Removing the third heuristic from the realm of theory, can you see specific instances of this dualism play out in the “real world” of experience?

In effect, rather than focusing on the form (theory, itself) do you see evidence of “ideology” and “utopia” at play in content (actual real world thought and action)?

Extra plus bonus points if you can discern evidence of ideology and utopia in media form or content, itself.

If you have thoughts on any of this, we’d all benefit from hearing them!

Thinking through Signs

Welcome to the first (formal) blog thread.

Last night we discussed what is and is not a medium, as well as the relationship that content has to various media. We also spoke a bit about certain processes associated with media existence and activity, in addition to (potential) impacts arising (from media activity) out in the social world . . . I know, it was a lot to take in.

Now, in our first reading, by John Fiske, the focus seems to be less on media than on content. Specifically, the reading centers on “signs” and how this relates to: (1) human communication, and (2) how signs might be formalized into a coherent “system” of meaning.

Building on this reading, think a bit about any of the following:

  1. sign language
  2. body language/gesture
  3. written script
  4. spoken words
  5. sound
  6. music
  7. odor
  8. taste
  9. emoji

What place do any (or all) have in a theory of signs? How are they related to our understanding of communication. How do any of these operate (concretely) as signs and/or within a hermetic system of meaning?

Identify an example (or two) of one of these (above elements) and explain it/them using some of the ideas or concepts in the Fiske reading.

Finally, is media’s role in this exercise: negligible, pervasive, or case-by-case (situational)?

{I know–it sounds like an essay prompt. Well, it doesn’t have to be. Write about whatever strikes your fancy, and no more than 1 to 3 paragraphs is expected. [Some writers, of course, can’t help themselves and before they know it, have penned 7 or 12!]}

About the (Dis)Course page

This category (page) is the “obligatory” space; the one where students will be expected to create/moderate/contribute to reading and lecture-related discourse each week.

Note that there are a few roles specified: blog creator/moderator and blog contributor. These roles differ, but one is no less important than the other.

“Blog creator/moderator” are those students (for the moment, given the current class size, usually two per week) who initiate a thread on a topic associated (primarily, in the first instance) with the readings. Past lecture material and/or previous readings may be broached, but the primary intent is to get us all thinking about the current readings. Discussion about lecture material or previous readings may best be diverted to/found in the “Post-Hoc” page.

In order to stay abreast of who is responsible for thread creation each week, students should refer to the “blog leader/creator thread rotation” posted in the “Resources: Course Administration” section of the course website. As intimated above, the rotation may have to be revised during the course of the semester, depending on adds/drops, so consult with the rotation schedule periodically, so as not to be caught off guard.

At a minimum, then, it is anticipated that there will be 2 unique threads per week (although moderators) may choose to create more. ALL students are expected to respond (by writing a reply) to at least one thread per week. Thus, students can anticipate penning between 13 and 26 blog entries during the semester. Obviously, the more threads one contributes to, the more (potential) impact on one’s participation evaluation (although, please note that quality trumps quantity). Students will be asked to keep a record of their posts and replies in one file inside their Dropbox folder on Trunk, in order to facilitate evaluation of their effort at term’s end.

Designated thread leaders are also asked to moderate discussion—which may mean asking for clarification of writers, or seeking to stimulate lagging discussion, or redirecting wayward discourse. How well a week’s conversation transpires is factored into the moderator’s evaluation.

What sort of content is being sought? What topic a moderator selects choose is up to her/him, but it ought to:

  • be reading-centered;
  • make a connection to prior readings and/or class lecture/discussion;
  • incorporate/reference phenomena from the social world (a media production, event, utterance, etc.)

Again, once a post is made, all students are expected to log a response, and the complete thread will likely be touched upon in class, so students should be ready to explain and defend what they have written.

Any questions? Use the comments section (below).

What is this (“Post-Hoc”) page for?

As the name implies, “Post-hoc” is where we turn for further discussion about lectures past.

Not clear about what was discussed?
Have a point that there wasn’t time to address?
Want to suggest further readings or make connections to media products that others may wish to sample (as they pertain to our in-class discourse)?

Here is where that can transpire. If we’re lucky, it won’t only be one student speaking in a vacuum; others will choose to weigh in . . . and from that, so much more may follow.