Marshall McLuhan
Monday, December 3, 2007
Marshall McLuhan, Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man
A couple of weeks ago, we were asked to read and comment on the first two chapters of Understanding Media. I had a hard time finding the book, but this weekend found it online and was finally able to sit down with it.
It took me a little while to get into it, but when I did I found it insightful. The line that resonated with me most was For the "message" of any medium or technology is the change of scale or pace or pattern that it introduces into human affairs. Many of the readings that we have done for class this semester were written long before the internet, and much of the media that we have been looking at, was created. For that reason, I found McLuhan's work particularly interesting, as it seems to have carried forth and remain accurate.
The medium is the message because the medium "shapes and controls" human action, reaction and interaction. So, is he saying that the message is always less important than the medium through which it is conveyed? Yes, I believe he is. It would be my take that it is, in fact, a combination of the medium and the motivation/thought behind the message that is the message. I would argue that the medium is never the totality of the message. I do agree, though, that changes of pace and scale are critical points in this discussion. Without scale, is there a message at all? (Thinking about the current state of digital media).
McLuhan's use of light as a focus of his discussion is interesting in a lot of ways. He writes that electric light "escapes attention as a communication medium", though I'm not sure that's the truth. At least not entirely. Our media is largely based on light. Photography and film were developed specifically to build upon the foundation of light and to harness it; to write with light. We are using light to interpret, while simultaneously interpreting light.
McLuhan's argument is persuasive, though could be well served by a touch of nuance. Clearly media informs our experience and the ways in which we absorb and react to information, but I think it is simplistic to claim that our reactions are informed solely by media. I would contend that, at least on occasion, there is an independent message that deserves equal consideration.
In Chapter 2 McLuhan approaches the idea of hot and cold media. Again, on this point (that a hot medium supplies the viewer/listener with more information and thus leaves less room for interpretation) I would argue that this needs to be examined delicately as well. By virtue of his elevation of certain senses, it would seem that this argument isn't completely infallible. What about someone who is blind? I would be willing to bet that the radio should be approached differently with that person in mind than it should be for someone who is sighted. Additionally, I would take issue, at least at this point, with the notion that hot media leaves less room for participation. It just seems all to general. I understand his point, and though I think it is valid, I would say that he fails to consider the idiosyncrasies of individuals. There is something to be said for the participation of the mind when listening to a lecture. I wouldn't say that a lecture is inherently less participatory than a seminar. I would say it really depends on how one defined participation.
posted by Amanda @ 12/03/2007 11:40:00 PM,