IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Know any photographers?
Am one. The medium is the message. There may be great digital picture artists in the future, but there will never be another Ansel Adams. BP's argument is specious.
-drl
New You're aware that AA did tricks, right?
[link|http://www.photosig.com/go/forums/read?id=216691|E.g.]:

Ansel was on record as saying he thought digital imaging would be a logical step in photography, and that he was intriqued by the possibilities. I can't imagine him not using PhotoShop (or, you know, Gimp, or some other full-functioned photo editing program), as much as he loved the manipulation part of the art. Anyone who would microwave prints when he wanted them dry in a hurry surely would at least experiment with the digital darkroom. :-)

For someone who would burn and dodge his negatives in the camera I suspect Ansel would aprecieate a tool like Photoshop. But I would never assume any thing.


He also did a lot of work in [link|http://www.twbookmark.com/books/94/0821219804/chapter_excerpt13230.html|color].

Cheers,
Scott.
New I ?think? this was my entire point
-drl
New Seemed the opposite to me. But ...
My understanding of Adams is that the image is message - the medium doesn't matter. He used B&W film because it let him achieve the images he wanted.

I think he would disagree with McLuhan's, [link|http://www.mcluhan.utoronto.ca/article_mediumisthemessage.htm|"The medium is the message."]. But it seems that I've been unaware that the words were redefined by McLuhan...:

Of all the Internet searches that end up at the McLuhan Program website and weblog, the search for the meaning of the famous "McLuhan Equation" is the most frequent. Many people presume the conventional meaning for "medium" that refers to the mass-media of communications - radio, television, the press, the Internet. And most apply our conventional understanding of "message" as content or information. Putting the two together allows people to jump to the mistaken conclusion that, somehow, the channel supersedes the content in importance, or that McLuhan was saying that the information content should be ignored as inconsequential. Often people will triumphantly hail that the medium is "no longer the message," or flip it around to proclaim that the "message is the medium," or some other such nonsense. McLuhan meant what he said; unfortunately, his meaning is not at all obvious, and that is where we begin our journey to understanding.

Marshall McLuhan was concerned with the observation that we tend to focus on the obvious. In doing so, we largely miss the structural changes in our affairs that are introduced subtly, or over long periods of time. Whenever we create a new innovation - be it an invention or a new idea - many of its properties are fairly obvious to us. We generally know what it will nominally do, or at least what it is intended to do, and what it might replace. We often know what its advantages and disadvantages might be. But it is also often the case that, after a long period of time and experience with the new innovation, we look backward and realize that there were some effects of which we were entirely unaware at the outset. We sometimes call these effects "unintended consequences," although "unanticipated consequences" might be a more accurate description.

[...]

McLuhan tells us that a "message" is, "the change of scale or pace or pattern" that a new invention or innovation "introduces into human affairs." (McLuhan 8) Note that it is not the content or use of the innovation, but the change in inter-personal dynamics that the innovation brings with it. Thus, the message of theatrical production is not the musical or the play being produced, but perhaps the change in tourism that the production may encourage. In the case of a specific theatrical production, its message may be a change in attitude or action on the part of the audience that results from the medium of the play itself, which is quite distinct from the medium of theatrical production in general. Similarly, the message of a newscast are not the news stories themselves, but a change in the public attitude towards crime, or the creation of a climate of fear. A McLuhan message always tells us to look beyond the obvious and seek the non-obvious changes or effects that are enabled, enhanced, accelerated or extended by the new thing.

McLuhan defines medium for us as well. Right at the beginning of Understanding Media, he tells us that a medium is "any extension of ourselves." Classically, he suggests that a hammer extends our arm and that the wheel extends our legs and feet. Each enables us to do more than our bodies could do on their own. Similarly, the medium of language extends our thoughts from within our mind out to others. Indeed, since our thoughts are the result of our individual sensory experience, speech is an "outering" of our senses - we could consider it as a form of reversing senses - whereas usually our senses bring the world into our minds, speech takes our sensorially-shaped minds out to the world.

But McLuhan always thought of a medium in the sense of a growing medium, like the fertile potting soil into which a seed is planted, or the agar in a Petri dish. In other words, a medium - this extension of our body or senses or mind - is anything from which a change emerges. And since some sort of change emerges from everything we conceive or create, all of our inventions, innovations, ideas and ideals are McLuhan media.

Thus we have the meaning of "the medium is the message:" We can know the nature and characteristics of anything we conceive or create (medium) by virtue of the changes - often unnoticed and non-obvious changes - that they effect (message.) McLuhan warns us that we are often distracted by the content of a medium (which, in almost all cases, is another distinct medium in itself.) He writes, "it is only too typical that the "content" of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium." (McLuhan 9) And it is the character of the medium that is its potency or effect - its message. In other words, "This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium - that is, of any extension of ourselves - result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology."


If Federman is correct above, then it seems to me that McLuhan should have condensed his thoughts into a different pithy sentence. And if this interpretation is correct, it seems to me to have little to do with Adams' work.

FWIW.

Cheers,
Scott.
(Who's very much a Left Brain person much of the time.)
New Well of course
This is similar to the nostrum "It's all relative" applied to relativity.

What *I* understood the statement to mean, in the context of art, is that the creations cannot be unhooked from the technology used to create them. So, for example, you can't play Beethoven on the harpsichord, or Chopin on the Rhodes piano.
-drl
New But with the true masterpiece
You often can.

But with the visual arts...you absolutely can. The eyes are easy to fool.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
New That only shows
that you can forge something well using a different tech. However, the creation of something is a different beast entirely.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New A nice clarification of McL's subtlety..
Been so long since I read him, I haven't bothered much to look at what people currently parse from that familiar (too-brief) slogan.

But in this opus linked, I think that author is close to my recollections. Particularly the phrase, the change of scale or pace or pattern - resonates with some hardly new observations of the ilk, "mankind suffers from a lack of 'scale and relativity'" -- which is itself a high scale generality, approaching that meta- vantage point.

At the time when McL achieved his (more than) 15-minutes of fame, ie mid-'60s.. when Understanding Media was first published, this was a bloody metaphysical level analysis of our preoccupation with a mechanical habit of 'analysis into infinite pieces' / yet with damn little thought about the subtle consequences of the growing mass of techno- inventions being thrown into the mix.

That all the throwing was almost exclusively a trajectory about $-making and ~ nil re the ripples that were overlapping - if one bothered to notice - was certainly pukka Murican.

As typically, too - 'we' have yet to grok his message about messaging; I doubt we shall have the attention span today, for any serious review.. even if we are more needful of that than in 1964.


RIP Marshall; you're still too advanced for a permanently adolescent kultur.
(Note that '64 was fully immersed in ongoing deep trauma of the JFK assassination - and before the MLK, RFK ones completed the preparation for the election of a Nixon - six months after RFK.)

I've maintained that 5/68 marked the exact inflection point of steady disintegration --> down to where a GWB even, could become a 'President' (!) McL's incisive work apparently made nary a lasting difference - then or now. Just rich fodder for a subsequent bunch of soc-sci theses as make no difference to the mass, or to our 'direction'.


Ashton
New Bull-pucky
Medium is message my ass.

The picture is the art, not the fact that it was "developed" from film or downloaded on a floppy.

Ansel Adams would have been great 200 years from now when film was a distant memory. It was his >vision< ... not the fact that he "used kodak paper"
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
     Another great photographer goes down - (deSitter) - (21)
         What are you talking about? - (bepatient) - (20)
             Oh, please. - (mmoffitt) - (19)
                 So is film, the bits are just smaller -NT - (drewk) - (2)
                     There is no "art of digital photography". - (mmoffitt) - (1)
                         I'm sure - (imric)
                 Know any photographers? - (bepatient) - (13)
                     Complete agreement. - (admin) - (2)
                         The only difference is permanency - (lincoln) - (1)
                             Known issue for all digital media - (drewk)
                     That reminds me.... - (n3jja)
                     Re: Know any photographers? - (deSitter) - (8)
                         You're aware that AA did tricks, right? - (Another Scott) - (6)
                             I ?think? this was my entire point -NT - (deSitter) - (5)
                                 Seemed the opposite to me. But ... - (Another Scott) - (4)
                                     Well of course - (deSitter) - (2)
                                         But with the true masterpiece - (bepatient) - (1)
                                             That only shows - (jake123)
                                     A nice clarification of McL's subtlety.. - (Ashton)
                         Bull-pucky - (bepatient)
                 And the horse you - (folkert) - (1)
                     Cousin said it best. - (bepatient)

apt-get install ifs-driver^W^Wkobodeluxe
89 ms