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.

"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.
 

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.