I liked the essay question about meaning and truth. It reminded me of the tutorial meeting where we discussed the difference. Meaning being something that can be precieved as more subjective and truth seeming to required hard facts to back it up.
posted by John Entwistle @ 7:34 p.m.
0 comments
This was a very lengthy and difficult read, However, once you get past the wordiness and jargon, Baudrillard has a very good point. The part about political incantation was interesting, even though I don't know all the details about watergate, I guess you could apply it to the whole Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal, ie "scandal as a means to regenerate a moral and political principle"...scandal being used by media and government to illustrate how your morals are being corrupted. the reality isn't what happened anymore, it's about threatening teh "moral fabric". This same tactic has been used to justify opposition to same-sex marrage recently.
posted by lindsay @ 10:26 p.m.
2 comments
No matter how you say it digitally modified photographs are lies, but we accept it as media as long as we know what is real and what is not. For instance just like when we watch a fictional movie we know that it’s not true and therefore we will take the ideas in it differently. Similarly when photographs are being modified, as long as it’s done right its acceptable. For instance if presenting a model poster I think it would be acceptable that these posters are modified as one who obtained this poster only has obtained it as decor object of say a beautiful woman, he hasn’t ever seen her and therefore has no concern what she actually looks like as long as the poster looks good. On the other hand if we have a situation of the photograph modification is presented to hide some vital information then it should be (and in most cases is) illegal. I am talking about cases like if a skin product has been advertised it should be illegal to digitally modify the model, as this would be false advertising. Same thing could go to any photographs (or media in general) that tries to conceal an essential truth by hiding or modifying information
posted by Vovan @ 6:51 a.m.
0 comments
People are full of Ideas and thoughts that we acquire all the time. We are not empty on the inside however if we have no way to output whattever we have within us then all this potential and all these thoughts they disapear in vain. "we are helped by what is not, to use what is" McLuhan. With the need for an outlet of our thoughts, ideas and emotions mediums were invented. Hollow mediums that are filled with our human substance. Without it books would be nothing more then blanck pages, and language would be nothing more then an assembly of meaningless sounds. I think this is what McLuhan is trying to show in his book, that media is what defines us as humans because all media are outlets of what we have inside, therefore it is the message.
posted by Vovan @ 1:48 a.m.
0 comments
Well, this was an interesting 24 pages of mumble jumble. I don't quite understand what they are talking about. Even some of the words were difficult to understand and by the time I looked a word up in the dictionary, I forgot what I was reading. I was just overall frustrated. The only bit I sort of understood or what I have thought to understand from the reading is that signs and symbols have replaced meaning and reality. I don't know does any one know. This is definitely something you have to read over and over again and I am just not into this reading at all to do that. Please can someone help me understand this more clearly?
posted by Nichy @ 10:07 p.m.
0 comments
Well this is deffinatly a different text from what we have been reading. I'm finding that with this text there are alot (and I mean ALOT) of words I have never seen before and do not understand at all. I have looked some up in the dictionary and that helps to a certain extent. This is deffinatly the most difficult read I think we have had this year, I think it requires us to read it not once or twice but three or four times to even begin to understand it. But anyway all that aside, I did find an interesting point in this reading. I found the discussion pertaining to someone faking a disease or sickness interesting. What I found interesting was the fact that if a person simulates the symptoms of a sickness to the point they actually appear to have the sickness then do they not actually have the sickness? If they are exhibiting symptoms is that not what determines whether they have it or not? I dont know I just found that interesting thought I'd throw it out there. Cheers.
posted by matthewnegrazis @ 10:00 p.m.
1 comments
I have to say reading the Medium is the Massage was a very different experience from a standard text. I found it interesting how the author used a mixture of imagery and text make his point. Sometimes using one or the other, other times just tiny bits of each. I guess the way its presented can send a different message.
posted by John Entwistle @ 5:12 p.m.
2 comments
If you read the book not knowing when it was written you might think it was written today. The ideas and themes in the book are all still very relevent. The term "global village" is still widely used. I don't think McLuhan was making a grand statment. Media is a part of everything we do. The messages sent and the way that they are sent have changed our lifestyles so drastically. McLuhan states that "Our official culture is striving to force the new media to do the work of the old." (p.94) This statment resonates today with the internet, we get much of our information, news and entertainment from the web. We talk on msn probably more often than we talk on the phone. Our reltionships with others is more consistant but less organic. Sure kids talk to your friends online all the time, but do kids "call on" each other anymore? The way we communicate has adapted to the form in which we communicate in. Grammar has taken a backseat to acronyms and emoticons. If this book was updated for 2007...would it still have the same message? I think so.
posted by lindsay @ 6:57 p.m.
2 comments
