subscribe to this page
My project focuses on the emergence of new types of "screens" - computer screens, iPod, PDA, cell phone screens, and other new media monitors - that might change how we approach, digest, and consume media every day. The sources I have chosen for this project reflect my desire to compare these new physical screens with older screens such as TV monitors and those in movie theaters. I also chose sources that provided background information on digital and New Media, as well as on theories of spectatorship and screen consumption, since I was not well-versed on the topic before beginning this project.
Friedberg, Anne. . Virtual window : from Alberti to Microsoft / Anne Friedberg. [0262062526 (hc : alk. paper) ] Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c2006.
Call#: Van Pelt Library Rosengarten Reserve B105.I47 F75 2006
Call#: Van Pelt Library Rosengarten Reserve B105.I47 F75 2006
Friedberg’s 2006 book discusses the recent emergence of new ideas on visual media perspective through the concept of the “window.” The computer plays host to the idea of presenting several distinct, unrelated displays to the viewer at once. These windows have become the marker of a multi-perceptual outlook. Friedberg traces the development of the concept of a “window” throughout time, with the word becoming a metaphor for one of an infinite number of screens now available to computer users everywhere. The metaphor, she says, implies a delimitation of a view with variable size. She goes on to examine the window in metaphoric, architectural, and virtual registers. All three views emphasize a framed look at a particular subject; spectatorship plays a major role in all three parts. Ultimately, she examines how computer windows have changed these traditional views on spectatorship, demanding a viewer who can handle multiple, adjacent, and postperspectival consumption.
Her book is unique because it is thus far the most comprehensive view on this very specific topic of screens and windows. She lays out a history behind her theory of “windows,” incorporating the related concepts of perspective, frame, spectatorship, and identification. Though the history gets a bit heavy at times, it’s an incredibly thorough background and a great one to have when considering spectatorship and interaction in the digital age. I also appreciated the fact that she included a section discussing the physical aspects of screens as seen through the writings of Paul Virilio. This is the most thorough discussion I could find on the physical attributes of the screen itself, and the roles it plays as both a boundary for and a provider of information.
The end sections of the book interest me the most because they discuss new media, and the future of new technologies in terms of Friedberg’s “virtual windows” theory. Sequential narratives here make way for the multiple and simultaneous, within one device as well as among many at once. This can be applied to devices like a PDA, which allows for instant messaging while e-mailing and writing reports; the new iPhone will also hold such capabilities, providing an update on the iPod (which, interestingly, doesn’t provide multiple virtual windows in the same device, but rather allows you to use that while using other small devices). These technologies still differ a great deal, at this moment, from televisions and the cinematic experience, and thus Friedberg’s theory can be directly applied to my paper topic.
belongs to The Relationship Between Audience Engagement with Screens in Both Old and New Media project
tagged Cinema Computer Identification Screen Spectatorship Visual_Media Window by knewbold ...on 13-MAR-07
tagged Cinema Computer Identification Screen Spectatorship Visual_Media Window by knewbold ...on 13-MAR-07
"Screen Narratives" Literature film quarterly [0090-4260] 34.1 (2006). 2-.
Jan Baetens’s article “Screen Narratives” sets out to define the term “screen” and its existence as a construction by the viewer. One definition that he posits is taken from Patrick Maynard, who states that every surface that is marked somehow by some type of sign is a screen. But screens also obscure things as well; Baetens acknowledges this contradiction as an inherent characteristic of a screen. He notes too, perhaps most importantly, that screens cannot be separated from the concept of “looking.” The emphasis on the visual here fits in well with what I want to explore in my paper, and gives me a source that actually looks at the screen itself (as opposed to a technology such as television or computers) and how one potentially interacts with it.
However, one drawback to this approach is precisely that no difference seems to appear between a television screen and a computer screen. Baetens, in endorsing a theory by Anne-Marie Christin as well as his own views (which align rather closely with Christin’s), renders the material aspect of a screen virtually immaterial. I agree that there’s more to a screen than the technology to which it’s tied; but, nonetheless, we do see new technologies through this screen, and thus it has to have something to do with the technology itself. Utilizing Maynard’s definition for his argument may cause some of the problem here, because a screen might constitute more than “a surface with a symbol.” His definition also clearly encompasses more than I’d care to discuss (windows, maps, playing cards, etc.), which enters into metaphorical areas of screen culture and thus guide him even further from any discussion of possible physical connections between screen and culture.
Overall, however, I do like the fact that the theory links screens with visual elements, and with the act of looking at something. This is the only source I have that explicitly examines the concept of a screen, and I think it would provide a good background (and healthy opposition to) my own ideas on what a screen is in different media. His idea of screen-thinking, or a dialogue on thoughts about screen, as a technology whereby several meanings are constructed at once, holds much relevance (and much potential discussion!) for ideas about the place of the screen as a one-way or multiple-way medium of information release.
However, one drawback to this approach is precisely that no difference seems to appear between a television screen and a computer screen. Baetens, in endorsing a theory by Anne-Marie Christin as well as his own views (which align rather closely with Christin’s), renders the material aspect of a screen virtually immaterial. I agree that there’s more to a screen than the technology to which it’s tied; but, nonetheless, we do see new technologies through this screen, and thus it has to have something to do with the technology itself. Utilizing Maynard’s definition for his argument may cause some of the problem here, because a screen might constitute more than “a surface with a symbol.” His definition also clearly encompasses more than I’d care to discuss (windows, maps, playing cards, etc.), which enters into metaphorical areas of screen culture and thus guide him even further from any discussion of possible physical connections between screen and culture.
Overall, however, I do like the fact that the theory links screens with visual elements, and with the act of looking at something. This is the only source I have that explicitly examines the concept of a screen, and I think it would provide a good background (and healthy opposition to) my own ideas on what a screen is in different media. His idea of screen-thinking, or a dialogue on thoughts about screen, as a technology whereby several meanings are constructed at once, holds much relevance (and much potential discussion!) for ideas about the place of the screen as a one-way or multiple-way medium of information release.
belongs to The Relationship Between Audience Engagement with Screens in Both Old and New Media project
tagged Computer_Screen Culture Looking Screen Symbol Technology Television_Screen by knewbold ...on 13-MAR-07
tagged Computer_Screen Culture Looking Screen Symbol Technology Television_Screen by knewbold ...on 13-MAR-07
White, Michele. . Body and the screen : theories of Internet spectatorship / Michele White. [0262232499 (alk. paper) ] Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c2006.
Call#: Van Pelt Library TK5105.875.I57 W5275 2006
Call#: Van Pelt Library TK5105.875.I57 W5275 2006
The Body and the Screen looks at theoretical models of Internet and computer spectatorship as a way of illustrating how these new technologies might not be as controllable as many think they are. Michele White views spectatorship as relatively similar between old and new media in certain ways. Just like in television and cinema, the images that appear before us on computer and phone screens hold a certain amount of cultural and social bias that cannot be removed. Consider the appearance of the “Ask Jeeves” butler – a Caucasian butler, and an image that has transferred exactly from old media to new. This idea is significant because it represents a departure from “traditional” ways of considering spectatorship in this age of digital screen interaction. I think her point-of-view provides a unique angle that I could perhaps use for my paper, especially since she outright disagrees with Anne Friedberg’s concept of an Internet/computer “user.”
The inclusion of several different types of theories and theorists in this book also appeals to me. I like that White chooses to back up her arguments with several different, at times competing, ideas from intellectuals of varying backgrounds. I’m not as interested in why she chooses whom she does; rather, her writing style here allows me to learn new bits of information quickly from authors I might not have known otherwise. In fact, overall, I learned a lot of little bits of information from other theorists in addition to studying her concept on new media spectatorship. The entire book is thus useful in this way.
Yet White’s examples and illustrative points may not be as helpful as her opinions and theories. She focuses a lot on the social implications of Internet content (how individuals consciously and subconsciously react to the white finger pointer or the black arrow pointer, for example), rather than examining the interaction between spectator and screen. Some discussion does exist on interfaces, especially in chapter 2’s discussion of “the gaze,” but ultimately return to reinforcing the social control that she believes pervades even this new media. My investigation really has nothing to do with examining gender, race, and sexuality issues in new media presentations, so much of this is not relevant for my paper.
The inclusion of several different types of theories and theorists in this book also appeals to me. I like that White chooses to back up her arguments with several different, at times competing, ideas from intellectuals of varying backgrounds. I’m not as interested in why she chooses whom she does; rather, her writing style here allows me to learn new bits of information quickly from authors I might not have known otherwise. In fact, overall, I learned a lot of little bits of information from other theorists in addition to studying her concept on new media spectatorship. The entire book is thus useful in this way.
Yet White’s examples and illustrative points may not be as helpful as her opinions and theories. She focuses a lot on the social implications of Internet content (how individuals consciously and subconsciously react to the white finger pointer or the black arrow pointer, for example), rather than examining the interaction between spectator and screen. Some discussion does exist on interfaces, especially in chapter 2’s discussion of “the gaze,” but ultimately return to reinforcing the social control that she believes pervades even this new media. My investigation really has nothing to do with examining gender, race, and sexuality issues in new media presentations, so much of this is not relevant for my paper.
belongs to The Relationship Between Audience Engagement with Screens in Both Old and New Media project
tagged Computer Digital Interface Internet Internet_Spectatorship New_Media Screen Theory by knewbold ...on 13-MAR-07
tagged Computer Digital Interface Internet Internet_Spectatorship New_Media Screen Theory by knewbold ...on 13-MAR-07
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
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.
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.
belongs to The Relationship Between Audience Engagement with Screens in Both Old and New Media project
tagged Computer Internet Media Media_Access Screen Technology User by knewbold ...and 1 other person ...on 13-MAR-07
tagged Computer Internet Media Media_Access Screen Technology User by knewbold ...and 1 other person ...on 13-MAR-07
Digital dialectic : new essays on new media / edited by Peter Lunenfeld. [0262122138 (hardcover : alk. paper) ] Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, c1999.
Call#: Van Pelt Library QA76.9.C66 D54 1999
Call#: Van Pelt Library QA76.9.C66 D54 1999
The Digital Dialectic, edited by Peter Lunenfeld, features a number of essays focused on resolving apparent contradictions that arise in new media theories. The main approach taken by most of the authors here is to utilize conceptual ways of viewing new media in tandem with a practical outlook on the potentiality of this novel group of technologies. As Lunenfeld explains, these essays look to see where new media can go rather than simply where it is. His introduction does a good, albeit brief, job of outlining what he means by dialectic and how this could apply to new media; he also fleshes out a definition of “digital” and compares this to analog, thereby inviting comparisons that could provide useful for my investigation. However, Lunenfeld and the other authors fail to really explain the useful significance of examining this dialectic. Other than urging us to not take an “all or nothing” approach to this new media, no real definitive conclusions come from these reports. Perhaps this is the point, since new media studies have only existed for a relatively short period of time. Or perhaps I’ve been somewhat desensitized to this way of thinking since I’ve grown up existing in and accepting this type of new media compromise. Either way, a little more push towards a greater practical application for these theories would have helped.
Aside from the introduction and general tidbits taken from the book, I think Lev Manovich’s essay, “What is Digital Cinema?” provides the greatest information and opinions for my paper topic. This essay examines how tracing the filmic image change from “traditional” film to digital technology allows for a formation of the logic of the digital moving image. This fits in well with my paper because I want to compare older screen technologies (film and TV) with newer image methods of production; Manovich’s thesis thus provides me with at least one argument through which I can examine my own views on differences in old and new filmic screen images. Manovich also provides some background information on what he considers “digital media” to be, including its evolution from multimedia and thus its distance from traditional cinematic realism. But, his main example, that of the CD-ROM, is slightly outdated and not as useful to my direct purposes – therefore, I plan on using newer examples from more recent sources in my paper.
belongs to The Relationship Between Audience Engagement with Screens in Both Old and New Media project
tagged Digital_Cinema Digital_Media Film Screen Theory by knewbold ...on 13-MAR-07
tagged Digital_Cinema Digital_Media Film Screen Theory by knewbold ...on 13-MAR-07