Morley, David, 1949- .Media, modernity and technology : the geography of the new / David Morley. [0415333415 (hbk. : alk. paper) ] London ; New York : Routledge, 2007.
Call#: Van Pelt Library P94.6 .M673 2007

 

Part Five of David Morley’s book examines the idea of “Techno-anthropology,” or the symbolic meanings of objects in our contemporary world. Morley uses the television as a main example of a modern technology that has come to hold much cultural signification on our everyday lives, and thus devotes a section of his book to explaining how exactly it fits into the world today. He suggests that the television has become somewhat synonymous with home or comfort; though initially a foreign object, it has since redefined the private space and come to hold a more or less sacred place in home culture. Though much of Morley’s discussion here has to do with television in and of itself, he makes a number of points about television that can then be used to discuss its relationship with new media. Also, this chapter points out that the symbolism and meaning of television has changed over time. I’m not sure how to incorporate this into my paper, or if I even need to do so – but I feel that to overlook it might be a mistake. In any case, it should at least be mentioned somewhat, if only to show the evolution of television as compared to new media.

Morley then turns to examining newer media technologies, with the purpose of refuting the concept that with new media comes new social and cultural uses for that media. He argues that while technologies like cell phones and computers do bring with them new ways of consumption, their arrival does not signal the death of traditional social rituals. Living traditions tend to incorporate new technologies rather than become obsolete in the face of media development. This fits with Michele White’s ideas on spectatorship, thus providing a non-traditional viewpoint to help me balance my paper.

That this book focuses very little on a viewer’s actual engagement with the screen prevents this source from becoming a major on for my paper. However, I do think that some of the ideas present here and Morley’s background on the evolution of these technologies can give me some good basic background information, as a foundation for my arguments.
 

Intermediality in theatre and performance / edited by Freda Chapple & Chiel Kattenbelt. [9042016299 ] Amsterdam ; New York : Rodopi, 2006.
Call#: Van Pelt Library PN2193.E86 I58 2006

 

Intermediality in Theatre and Performance is basically a book about theatre and its various interactions with other forms of media. Most of the essays discuss theatre as the main focus, and thus have no relevance for my argument; however, one essay discusses small screens in relation to television texts, and thus was somewhat of find for me in an otherwise very random source. Robin Nelson notes here an intermediality between television, theatre, and “PC culture,” which essentially marks the creation of self-aware participants who experience and perceive images differently based on their absorption of these interlocking media. I especially like the concept of “hypermediacy” presented in this book: the idea that we can recognize and even enjoy the realization that the images coming to us are mediated in one way or another. The author claims that both older and new media evoke some degree of hypermediacy, and strongly suggests that new media tend to hold a greater degree of hypermediacy. The author’s discussions on narrative temporality displacement in hypermediacy hold little value for me here, but the pages devoted to screen space and time provide good basic examples for my inquiry.

One thing that seems to be missing from this exploration is a thorough discussion on the implications of intermediacy. The author describes it to us, and it’s not a difficult concept to understand; but, fundamentally, what does it mean for the interaction between old and new media? What’s at stake here? Nelson admittedly backs away from a discussion of what will happen to TV in the future, aside from meekly stammering that TV will probably still thrive after the boom of the Internet/computers had died down; yet why not debate what intermediacy could do to/for television, in relation to new media? The discussion was definitely lacking in this area, and I would have liked to see Nelson do more than just describe a difference between television and new media.

Ultimately, I think this source can prove useful, but it won’t be a major source for my investigation. The concept of hypermediacy holds some interest for me, and I believe is worth exploring in different contexts. I also plan to utilize the brief discussion on small screen manipulation (the idea that we can take our iPods, iPhones, etc., and watch a movie in the palm of our hand, thereby greatly altering how we consume that screen and interact with it) that Nelson employs.
 

Media access : social and psychological dimensions of new technology use / edited by Erik P. Bucy, John E. Newhagen. [0805841091 ] Mahwah, N.J. : L. Erlbaum, c2004.
Call#: Van Pelt Library P91.28 .M43 2004

 

In Media Access, John E. Newhagen and Erik P. Bucy discuss what it means to have “access” to the Internet. More than simply being able to sit in front of a computer, Internet access holds several dimensions that demand certain levels of literacy and understanding from its users. The authors utilize a number of self-created terms (“system access,” “content access,” and “social access,” to name a few) that segment Internet usage in ways that I had not previously considered relevant for my purposes. However, their distinctions do provide much useful information for considering how users absorb what comes to them from the computer screen, which seems to fit well with my topic. They also lay out a specific difference between disseminating information from a television screen versus a computer (internet) screen: that internet computer screens allow us to accurately process both text and images through utilization of a higher resolution, which TV and cinema screens have thus far not been able to do. I’m not entirely sure I completely understand what this idea means, and thus I can’t wholly endorse it. But, it does give me a place to start when considering the differences between these two screen cultures.

The above argument also prodded me to consider the Internet’s role in how the screen culture changes from TV/cinema to computer/iPod/PDA/whatever. I had not thoroughly contemplated how it changes the media experience, but it clearly does; it also complicates my two divisions somewhat. You can, for example, have the Internet on your phone and computer, but not on your iPod (yet); but the iPod screen, to me, fits so clearly in with a new media approach to absorbing screen images that I feel compelled to fit it in with computer and phone image absorption. Perhaps, then, I’ll approach a discussion of the Internet’s effect on only certain new screen technologies.

The other aspect of this chapter that I thought I could prove useful was the authors’ discussion of the process of media access. They devote a good portion of the chapter to this concept, outlining both linear and nonlinear accesses and their presence in media. Ultimately, they suggest that linear access fits in with older (read: TV, non-Internet) screen cultures, and a nonlinear, or more engaging, method of media consumption, with new forms of screen technologies. While this simplifies the argument somewhat, it’s useful in a general way to indicate a potentially more active user response in newer media forms, which may in turn hint to a larger difference between viewer engagement with different forms of screen media.