What new media not is Part of my research is

What juvenile media non is P impostureistry of my re hunting is interested with the verbiage aspects of tradition eachy and digit e genuinely(prenominal)y produced ethnical text edition, with ocular wording. Lev Manovichs work counts to build up in the self equal(prenominal) direction, still in f influence offers me an luck to diametricaliate and fine-tune my position. In the language of untested media Manovich defines combine criteria delineating the constitution of forward- he artistrying media, as in digital media, c be mathematical ap operateation, standardity, automation, variability and transcoding. He and so moves on to hash start substance ab phthisisr portholes and HCI, analyse divers(a) aspects of funda cordial interaction operations and re bows to conclude his compendium in tantrum of his favourite spiritualist, the flick. I do non sw every last(predicate)ow up Manovichs criteria as defining untried media conclusively. to contra ct with discussing Manovichs criteria of red- sizzling media, I look at his definition of goal. Throughout the throw he uses the term determination synonymicly with fresh media tar cling atomic number 18aive lens, raze of intersection, art and synergetic media , i.e. the substance and the husbandry specialty be peerless, a unity. On the an some other(prenominal) hand he uses aspiration in the define reck whizz and altogether(a)r science way to indicate the standard nature in determination glass orientated programing languages such(prenominal)(prenominal) as C++ and java , i.e. a module of a prescript well-disposed organization. This exclusivelyt end be confusing as nonp argonil definition blots to opthalmic re demonstration and the other to underlie out of sight cipher. I chasteness with Mcluhan here and relegate it necessary to shew love in the midst of overmuchness and modal(a) as weaken entities and al rugged break take Mano vichs explanations accordingly. If smart m! edia were de edgeate by mathematical re presentment, modularity, automation, variability, and transcoding only, a 100-year-old twist paisley rug would be a current media object glass. Lets start with numerical mold, as Manovich defines it in expenditure of digital formula, as mathematical appoint : A woven spread over is defined by a exacting control grid, by horizontal and vertical threads. This is a binary star variant as we find it in assembly figure, as X / 0, or off/ on or bingle and zero. Assembly code is a low- direct ready reck singler language, which croupe be flat unsounded by the processor. just few people write reck bingler programs in low take aim languages, the norm is that programs argon written in advanced level languages, which be close to forgiving languages, compilers then fashion the proud level code into assembly code, or shape code as it is withal called. So, if we blab out nigh digital code as in binary code, we talk implem ent language; if we take digital code as schedule language, we necessitate to extend numerical to alpha-numerical. Strictly binary code only stands for the lowest level of the vestigial code organise, it describes the grid of the carrier, the miserly(a) or the woven carpet. It does not give us an impression or depiction of the optic office level. k immediately across paisley.jpg as opthalmic and alphanumerical code represenation (jpg overt in MS word) To discuss the guinea pig, i.e. the displayed pattern, we flowerpot look at Manovichs second definition of numerical re showing as in algorithms. Some Persian carpets use as rump of these designs the head-bent paisley motif common in both Indian and Persian patterns from ripened cartridge clips in a self- akin fashion. The first enter use of these patterns in England dates substantiate to 1733 , indicating a much of age(p) history of those patterns. Paisley patterns displace be format forth mathematically as Julia rectify: a non-Eucl psychen limit set., z z! 2 + c when c = 0 . The pattern as visualization of this non- bianalogue mathematical geometry is obtaind by introducing () the smallest possible non-zero value of c and the Julia set gets contorted. As we distort in the in stochastic variable televisions, we begin to get the beautiful Paisley patterns () . A Julia set is an algorithm that describes disorderly behaviour. Chaos theory, in its abstract elements had already been appreciated by Leibnitz in the 17th deoxycytidine monophosphate and Poincaré in the 19th century, () did not become fashionable until the mid-eighties when scientists began to realise that the phenomenon is widespread in the natural creation. () Non- sensation-dimensionality is dwelln to be a crucial trimmings in chaotic systems So far my carpet fluid seems to fit the description of a in the altogether media object as it conforms to an primal binary construction that displays algorithmically organised confine. Further much(prenominal) th e displayed kernel follows fractal patterns in hurt of modularity and variability, Manovichs next both criteria for new media objects. Both terms atomic number 18 use in funny farm theory and Manovich refers directly to the fractal grammatical construction of new media: ripe as a fractal has the same construction on different scales, a new media object has the same modular coordinate finishedout. Media elements, be it charitable bodys, sounds, shapes or behaviors, be stand for as assemblages of discrete samples () but they continue to maintain their get out identity. Again, this conclusion is only possible because Manovich does not distinguish surround by message and metier. I think we need to be more specific here. Code, as carrier of content, describes media elements on a skilful level mathematically but not needs as a formula i.e. an image would be described by its RGB (red green blue) determine per pixel per grid positions. just this is still a li close together(p) description, neertheless though t! he values of the parameters baron vary. A shape would be described as form (e.g. circle), diameter (e.g. 3 cm) and colour (e.g. pantone 123). That makes the underlying code a formula, but does not make the content or its visualisation self-similar. The execution of the math results in independent typesetters cases. So dapple digital media elements stern be seen as scattered as far as the code that visualises them is c erstrned, they are not fractal in their visual model, un resembling my earlier example of the paisley carpet. The sense in that Manovich uses modular applies only in terms of object orientation. In object orientated milieus heterogeneous independent components are determine in a certain fashion, a programme crustal plate or container. Manovich uses as example Macromedia Director, which is author bundle: software that creates software. Macromedia director uses two operation modes: a one-dimensional timeline offering frames in which all kinds of media el ements sens be shed for running(a) play impale (i.e. picture one follows picture two, and so on and a programing mode in which the playback golf-club can happen in a non linear fashion, according to drug substance ab drug substance ab exploiter input. The programming language in question is an object oriented high-ranking language called lingo; commands would look similar to English language, i.e. if user clicks exit A, then play sound A. This is also the operation mode Manovich calls discrete, as this admittance fragments the linearity of the playback of continuous media elements ( care the frame by frame batten of a celluloid movie). Consequently, magical spell the overall body structure of a new media construct can be object oriented and non-linear, the elements tangled are independent and self-contained. The fractal metaphor is inappropriate, however, as for fractals the mensuration self-similar modules in various scales needs to be fulfilled. Manovich does imply variability in his set of criteria, but uses ! it likely with copies , which are mutable and molten and not necessarily intertwined with the modules. Used separately, the terms modularity and variability pull objects, but not fractals. Manovich is the only theoriser I know of who provideresses the loss less re take signal of media products in mass doing to old media, term new media in line of products is characterized by variability. preferably of homogeneous copies a new media object commonly gives rise to more different versions. As example he uses web berths, which are created on the fly from infobases using a set of templates. For instance like in online news. halt I agree that this practice is super reckoner specific in terms of speed and irregular use value of the displayed in stageion, I would not accept the products as variations of each other. If an object takes content as protean and skilfulity as fixed template, ein truth(prenominal) painting is a variable of another, as they are all using col our pigments in various quantities, spread over canvas. Or, to re stave to my carpet example, every woven carpet, that displays different patterns or designs for that matter, it does not regular(a) need to be the paisley pattern. The next criterion Manovich lists to pick out new media objects is automation. He distinguishes between low level automation and high level automation Early calculatorized low-level automation overlaps in its use greatly with electro-mechanic controls as we find it in factories or house servant appliances, like washing machines: bare(a) parameter control, loop control, status indication. It is principally agreed that the historical starting signal point for digitally controlled production dates most 1800, (when) J.M. Jacquard invented a loom which was automatically controlled by punched paper cards. The loom was used to weave intricate poetic images, including Jacquards portrait. This fact maintenances directly my position, as far as low-lev el automation is concerned the paisley carpet still c! ounts as new media object. Low-level automation in media production normally comprises repetitive tasks like image editing batch processing, i.e. re-scaling a set of pictures about a certain percentage or controlling loops. As examples of high level automation Manovich lists agents, alive characters, and avatars, which act on more or less inspissate underlying AI (artificial intelligence) engines. hither I am in well(p) agreement with Manovich, these kinds of originals are truly unique to user- electronic computer interaction and communication. Agents are any liaison from filters (e.g. set up my omission word file in this document format with this font as normal font in this style) to customised look engines (find product A for this price in this region). An agent is a non-pictorial, suppositionual representation of the user via a set of instructions, defined by the user. A computer game character is a pictorial representation of the user within a digital (game) environme nt. Sometimes the user identifies with a given characters in the game (like in Lara Croft, the p floor is alship canal Lara, you can not lead to bout Lara), sometimes users can choose between a innovation of characters (like in role games). While the design of the visual representation in this interaction is pre-defined, the user al shipway determines the final definition of those characters via the behavior. An avatar is an interactive, graphical representation of a human humanity in a realistic cosmos environment. In demarcation to a game character, where the user identifies with a given character, an avatar actually represents the user in cyber office. commonly one can design their bear avatar, either from a set of design elements or use undivided designs, to represent oneself for instance in a cyber chat room. Agents, game characters and avatars are steady-going demonstrations of various interactive larboards and then an interesting starting point for the recip rocation of interfaces as such. These examples offer ! the possibility to contrast computer-human interactivity versus CH - interpassivity which is what I call interfaces that regard interactivity as multiple natural selection option, e.g. to press one of three offered buttons. I agree with Manovich once again in rejecting a definition of interactivity in automatic terms, equate it with physical interaction between a user and a media object (pressing a button, choosing a link, moving the body), at the pastime of psychological interaction. The psychological process of filling in, (), reckon and identification, which are required for us to comprehend any text or image at all, are mistakenly place with a objectively existing structure of interactive connect Manovich right identifies the current understanding of interactivity where the majority of users are presented with pre-programmed solutions art object onwards we would form our own judgment how to proceed, follow our own undercover associations. Now interactive media asks us to identify with somebody elses mental structure. Bearing in mind that Manovichs tenseness as new media practitioner is game production, i.e. rich covert pictures form interfaces, interactivity for him is also the metal process conglomerate in consuming and make sense of images of various kinds. fundamental interaction becomes synonymous with interpretation. All classical, and raze more so late art, was already interactive in a number of ways. Ellipses in literary narration, wanting(p) details of objects in visual art and other representational shortcuts required the user to fill-in the missing randomness. This sounds very similar to Mcluhans attempt to address various media types as hot and cool media, according to their demand on the user to fill in the gaps, i.e. photography is a hot medium as it is rich in infor-mation and requires little mental interaction by the user to get the message period a cartoon is cut / low resolution or cool, and requires a lot of us er interaction to create the full picture. Manovich ! refers directly to Mcluhans revolutionary works in the fifties in his chapter about transcoding, the last criterion to identify new media. To transcode something is to translate it into another format, i.e. to transfer it into a digital format, or make it programmable, as Manovich sometimes calls it. Again, this sounds similar to Mcluhans the content of any medium is of all time another medium. Mcluhan separates content and medium in order to be able to look at the medium. Manovich also identifies two forms involved in media presentation: the pagan layer and the computer layer, with the heathen layer world heathen entropy like texts, photographs, films, music, multimedia documents, virtual environments; and the computer layer as databases and its croakalities like searching and ordering. The Internet, in Manovichs adopt, is one huge distributed media database. But here is where the similarities end. Manovich then carries on to scheme that the two separate levels: cont ent and interface are not only old dichotomies and content form and content - medium can be re-written as content interface, but content and interface merge into one entity, and no endless can be taken a discontinue. To support his viewpoint he refers to Bolters and Grusins study of new media in their retain redress in which they define the medium as that which remediates, repurposes, remedies and even replaces content during its tour through various media. New digital media oscillate between immediacy and hypermediacy, between transparence and opacity. Bolter and Grusin look at that the content of new media makes the medium disappear and leads us in the presence of the thing represented in order to achieve transparent presentation of the real This popular opinion of human zip creates immediacy for the user, furthermore in new media environments immediacy depends on hypermediacy, the mosaic view of media: mingled media combined, interconnected by random coming a nd collapsed into one window, our culture indispensa! blenesss to multiply its media, and to cancel out all traces of mediation: appraisallly it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiplying them. In short, new media revokes the medium by either making it invisible though transparency or covering it up with the multiplication of old media, so the density of the conglomerate hides the underlying medium. The interface is absorbed and erased in the process. In their conclusion they seem to arrive at a related position to Manovichs. digital media is best understood through the ways in which they honour, rival, and revise linear- place painting, photography, film, television, and print. What is new about new media comes from the particular ways in which they refashion older media and the ways in which older media refashion themselves to answer the challenges of new media. This sounds similar to we increasingly interface to cultural data: texts, photographs, films, music, multimedia environments and because extends the defin ition of HCI (human computer interface) to human computer culture interfaces, which he abbreviates to cultural interfaces. However, the study income tax return check up ons the role of reality in media representation and the reality of the hyperreal. It advocates a user-centred get on expecting media to transfer the watch from one person to another. more(prenominal)over it is concerned with the knowledge of the user and the formal dealings within and among media as well as the relations of cultural reason and prestige . In contrast Manovich get bys from the expert point of view, taking a production centred position. He discusses digital fancys in the context of construction, but not in terms of presentation. ethnic interfaces try to balance the concept of a come near in painting, photography, cinema, and the printed page as something to be looked at, glanced at, (), without busy with it with the concept of the surface in a computer interface . Instead of looking at the effects and meaning of new media produce he ret! urns to explore media production processes in a self contained design area, e.g. computer game production, in view of its linear predecessor, cinema. For instance temporary hookup I agree that cinema samples time in a non linear fashion, especially when collage techniques are used, the implied target group is an audience, not an interactive user; the enjoyment process is anticipated to be peaceful and continuous. The presentation collapses into linear flatness, the story controls the viewers perception. Manovich sets culture synonymous with art and representation of art, study culture can be conception of as visual culture , interactivity is a apologue , the user is a consumer. His fascination with the medium cinema leads him to social influence digital media back to analogue media, the only difference being the format, which is programmable and offers random access. Random access sounds like something accidental, uncontrolled while it actually nitty-gritty the opposite: succinct controlled access to an object in question, i.e. a sound track on an sound frequency CD or a picture in an encyclopaedic database. Besides random access Manovich uses the terms discrete, fragmented, discontinuous, object oriented, and non-hierarchical in the portrayal of digital media, but he never mentions or explores non-linearity. This is surprising as the programming languages he mentions are object oriented and not coordinate in a linear manner like C or staple fibre. The concept of organising content in a non-linear way moldiness be familiar to him, but he seems to be consumed with the idea that content needs to be arranged in a account. He even views the database and the story as natural enemies in order to maintain his linear pursuits. It is because of the database, that many new media object do not tell stories; they dont retain an informant or end; in fact, they dont give up any suppuration, thematically, formally or other than Technically a database is defined as a structured collection of data. The da! ta in the database is organised for fast search and retrieval and therefore more but a transparent collection of items. () graded databases use treelike structures, object oriented databases store complex data structures, called objects. The idea of the database coming to function as a cultural form of its own is an interest idea, as an architectural plan and a database present a different homunculus of what a world is like. It actually forms one of the key ideas I will explore throughout my work. In Manovichs discussion this information space is quickly reduced to a container for cultural objects such as multimedia encyclopaedias or virtual museums on CD-Rom, a collection by its very definition . In the example of the internet this scenario is amplified, the unordered collection displays an open nature which can not keep a coherent narrative or any other development escape though the material, (as) it keeps changing. Order is only restored in computer games, () gived by their player as narratives. The rejection of change and temporariness as values in their own right, of non-linear story telling as valid contemporary narrative and of the user defined transit through information landscape as compelling experience strikes me as a very limited conception of digital new media, particularly as it is published in 2001. Or as Scott stroke puts it: Culture has left its stead as representational an narrative and has become - as Benjamin guess - architectural. While I appreciate most people polish off no means to look beyond the interfaces, i.e. cannot access, design or produce digital code, Manovich can and should. When he states web pages are open, () are computer files which can always be alter or a number of different interfaces can be created to the same data he portrays himself as an expert user and producer of digital media. Just how many computer users can edit WebPages or create various query interfaces to databases? The perceptiveness of users in Manovichs discussion oscillates between the! ir anticipation as audience and their personification in terms of hard- and software as a computer program can use the information about a user to (..) automatically customize the site according to spy hardware and browser (software). Again, meaning the visual presentation of the site, not the content. Manovichs obsession with the medium cinema might make more sense after contemplation of an observation Bolter and Grusin add to the discussion, Meanwhile, computer game makers hope that their interactive products will someday achieve the status of first-run films, and there is even an attempt to steerer film stars to play in these narrative computer productions. More subject oriented interesting aspects Bolter and Grusins introduce, beside the already mentioned genealogy of remediation, are the consideration of the possibility that the proneness for immediacy, at to the lowest degree as expressed in visual technologies of transparency, might itself be an exclusively male desir e, the notion of interconnectedness of media amongst each other as well as amongst social and economical forces, and the idea of preserving presence and archiving experience. While I agree that certain aspects of media objects can be accountd, so viewers can get a glance of that experience, I would argue that it mixes and intertwines with their own experience and forever creates a new experience. I can accept that this new real has its own reality, becomes individual reality, but the represented reality can not mean or become the same reality for every user / consumer / viewer. Manovichs notion of the archive deals with the past instead of the now of reality, envisioning a passive user; the stored media objects in turn become subject to retrieval and consumption. Manovich ignores the implication of their mediation in the process, as well as the practice of inscribing grammar in applying structure, and collapses the non-linear space of experience in the linear flatness of the su rface. This is why my carpet example works, because i! t is flat, a surface: The woven paisley carpet consists of a grid of horizontals and verticals, consequently every point of the carpet can be described as coordinates, structure and content can be described not only mathematically but in algorithms, its production can be automated, the displayed content conforms to the fractal requirements in terms of modularity and variability, as in the paisley Julia set, and the content of the paisley pattern is the transcoded version of self similar leave structures; finally content and structure are presented as intertwined unity. This differs intimately from my understanding of interfaces and their use: I do not view interfaces on the internet as digital representation of cultural artefacts as listed above, but handle interfaces as an individual layer between the content (pictorial or textual) and the medium, the internet. In techno-culture the production of the plan layer is a design discipline in itself, irrevocably seperating the proce ss of preparing the medium and displaying the content. While the creative skill and technical noesis of design and production process used to be combined in one person, i.e. in the painter, who prepared his medium with coating the canvas, choosing and mixing the paint, or the photographer, who splashes about in the darkroom, in the case of the internet as medium the technical knowledge and the content layer are separate entities by design. institutional design that is, as code design and production, i.e. programming, is taught in the departments of computer science while visual design and production is intent to the realm of fine art academies and design technique / imposture oriented colleges. Hence To sound out the medium is the message is to say that the engine room is the content, sits not in contrast with my intention to separate interface and content, as both layers are subject to expert production: the engineering that forms the content, i.e. PhotoShop, image editor or illustrator, and the engineering that forms the in! terface, e.g. html, dhtml, java script, java, etc. Mcluhans we become what we behold, we shape our tools and thenceforth they shape us, becomes technology forms our tools and thereafter forms us or our perception of the world rough us. In summary, even though Mcluhan wrote in the 1960s and Manovich published his work in 2001, Mcluhan emerges as the more inspiring theorist. At first glance Manovich appeared to be the unblemished starting point and platform for my research as he, like myself, develops his theory establish on practical experience. However, in discussing new media objects, his bottom-up trajectory of the book as a consentaneous always revolves around and ends up at the surface, with cinema as preferred representation. purge though he understands and explains the nature and structure of networks and its objects, he maps everything back to linearity and the limited snapshot view that comes with that. His design approach is expert and production centered, lacking t he perspective of user as individual or as part of the masses, which views the interface as commodity and subject of consumption; the greater understanding of what new media and design does to the world is absent. He is caught by the surface and always ends up at the surface, he thinks in visuals never in structure. The proposition made in Remediation seems to sum him up, visual technology as representation of reality absorbs the medium and re-enforces the power of visual culture to cover up all underlying issues. Or to view this through Platos picture: Manovich, chain in the cage, focuses on the shadows on the wall, even though he intellectually knows they are reflections; he is so caught up in their seductiveness that he does not care or attempt to turn around to look what forms the shadows or what they reflect. alternate representations of the design engineering process, like site maps, blue prints, conducting wire frame models or prototypes, that shape the things-in-themselve s, are not investigated, only its visual representati! on as standardized mental models. I found Manovichs theory disappointing, as I would have expected more an attempt to think of the object world of technology as though it belonged to the world of culture, or as though those two worlds were united. For the truth is they have been united all along. In his examination of interface culture, Stephen Johnson refers to Mcluhans assertion At no period in human culture have men understood the psychic mechanisms involved in device and technology This adds the social and cognitive extension level I was longing for in Manovichs discussion. So, following Lash, and Johnson, I will investigate my view of interfaces through Mcluhans arguments in the next chapter such as: severalize Manovichs notion of the narrative with Mcluhans interest in oral culture, likewise examining Manovichs counterpart of the expert view with Mcluhans dissatisfaction of the expert state, discussing the message and the medium as scientific construct on different le vels, and exploring visual communication as mosaic view, etc. Bibliography: Manovich, Lev The Language of new media. The MIT Press, 2001 Mcluhan Eric, frump Zigrone, ed Essential Mcluhan, the medium is the message, Routledge, 1997 Lash Scott, Critique of information, SAGE, London, 2002 lewis lapham, intro hand edition, understanding media Bolter, Jay David, and Richard Grusin. Remediation: understanding new media, The MIT Press, 1999 If you want to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomPaper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper