As media technologies change, a way of delivering message also have changed.
First, messages were delivered by primitive oral culture. Next, by literate culture. After, Mechanical printing, and now by electric media.
These were changed due to a technology development. And I think also, by people's need. Just by a literate way, we couldn't express a message effectively. Like when we say "I love you!" It can really mean that I love you, but I also can mean I don't love you, when it is pronounced differently. Anyway, later mechanical printing was developed. This is like 'pal man dae jang kyung'. By this we could print out a lot at once. Now there is an electric media to send messages, like web, cell phones, and etc.
The important thing is that, while delevering a message it could be changed. Like when Korea didn't have a skill to make our own money, we had to send the picture to another country to make it. For example, when we sent a picture of 'King Sae Jong', they couldn't make it exactly. When it first came to drawer's hand, he changed a little bit, and sent to a draftman. The draftman also changed as his way. He cut of what he thought it was not needed. Next carvler carved in his way as he used to do. When the print came out, it was quite different compared to the original. It looked more like a foriegner.
For another example, 'Story Chun Hang', which we can say it is in a small group have changed into many similar stories, like 'chun hang duen', etc.
Many media contents can be changed or translated to other media. This is why story telling came out.
If we see above, we just can't say that the changes of the message is really bad for us. Changed messages could be distracting to us, but on the other hand it makes a lot of fun stories. So it is important to figure out on which occasion is good and bad.
2007년 12월 9일 일요일
2007년 12월 2일 일요일
New media : Determining or determined? (11/29)
On this lecture, we have learned about whether a new media is determining or determined, which means.. is new media a active or passive.
We have discussed this problem by talking about Mc Luhan and Williams. Also by talking about centeral culture and popular culture.
McLuhan said that new media change everything. On the other hand Williams said that medium is a part of our culture, and it includes socual processes.
I think it is just a way of thinking. It is very similar to the phrase, 'Is egg first or a chicken first?' That's because new media can change everything with it's new technologies, and also we can think that those new media(new technologies) is brought up in our culture. If we see TV as an example, we can ask... is TV made up as a part of our culture? or did TV changed our life style and our culture? This, we should ask to the person who developed the TV.
Again, centeral culture and popular culture.
Centeral culture is enjoyed by only few person, like classic, oppera, etc. This have a history, and contain a lot of studies and researches. We also call this a high art.
Popular culture is a culture which is popular to us. TV shows could be an example, and this have no historical background. To make popular culture to centeral culture, we have to research many things and study, so that it can have a historical background. Many proffessors and students are doing this works.
Prof. Yoon said arts like pictures are considered as a centeral culture, but media artrs like interactive arts are not considered as a centeral culture. That's because arts like pictures have a long histories, but media arts doesn't. But I'm sure media arts will become a centeral culture soon, because technologies are developing and things are changing very rapidly in this century.
We have discussed this problem by talking about Mc Luhan and Williams. Also by talking about centeral culture and popular culture.
McLuhan said that new media change everything. On the other hand Williams said that medium is a part of our culture, and it includes socual processes.
I think it is just a way of thinking. It is very similar to the phrase, 'Is egg first or a chicken first?' That's because new media can change everything with it's new technologies, and also we can think that those new media(new technologies) is brought up in our culture. If we see TV as an example, we can ask... is TV made up as a part of our culture? or did TV changed our life style and our culture? This, we should ask to the person who developed the TV.
Again, centeral culture and popular culture.
Centeral culture is enjoyed by only few person, like classic, oppera, etc. This have a history, and contain a lot of studies and researches. We also call this a high art.
Popular culture is a culture which is popular to us. TV shows could be an example, and this have no historical background. To make popular culture to centeral culture, we have to research many things and study, so that it can have a historical background. Many proffessors and students are doing this works.
Prof. Yoon said arts like pictures are considered as a centeral culture, but media artrs like interactive arts are not considered as a centeral culture. That's because arts like pictures have a long histories, but media arts doesn't. But I'm sure media arts will become a centeral culture soon, because technologies are developing and things are changing very rapidly in this century.
the return of the Frankfurt school critique in the popularisation of new media & conclusion (11/27)
In this lecture, on thing which was important was that there are two ways to create a media.
One is to reflect the traditional to make a new thing. This can be thought as paintings like Picasso, and so on. these paintings are not a new way. They just followed the traditional ways to paint.
But on the other hand, there is a way to create new by not reflecting the traditional. By just combining many new things, it create another new thing. By this we can get various of new things than before.
I also have learned that the politicans used media to scatter people's concentrations. For example, in Korea, Jeon Doo Hyun used 3S( sport, sex, screen) to scatter people's concentrations. So I can say media is a very powerful weapon.
One is to reflect the traditional to make a new thing. This can be thought as paintings like Picasso, and so on. these paintings are not a new way. They just followed the traditional ways to paint.
But on the other hand, there is a way to create new by not reflecting the traditional. By just combining many new things, it create another new thing. By this we can get various of new things than before.
I also have learned that the politicans used media to scatter people's concentrations. For example, in Korea, Jeon Doo Hyun used 3S( sport, sex, screen) to scatter people's concentrations. So I can say media is a very powerful weapon.
Who was dissatisfied with old media? (11/20)
Am I dissatisfied with the old media??
Well.. not exactly until the new media came out. For example, when TV was there with no other new media, it itself was very interesting and new.
As time passed, many new media have been developed with new technologies. Such as video player, and after DVD player came out. Many new media comes out due to the dissatisfings of the media before. That's why media keep on developing.
As a conclusion, I think rather saying that we are dissatisfied with the old media, it is more wright to say we want new functions in the media as technologies develop.
Well.. not exactly until the new media came out. For example, when TV was there with no other new media, it itself was very interesting and new.
As time passed, many new media have been developed with new technologies. Such as video player, and after DVD player came out. Many new media comes out due to the dissatisfings of the media before. That's why media keep on developing.
As a conclusion, I think rather saying that we are dissatisfied with the old media, it is more wright to say we want new functions in the media as technologies develop.
the return of the middle ages and other media archaeologies(11/13) / a sense of deja vu & conclusion (11/15)
We have talked of dejavu in this class.
Dejavu is a situation which you think it really happened just like it happened in your dream.
I had many dejavus. There were many situations which exactly happened just as in my dream. When I was in India, I was lying down on a bed, and the telephone rang. That was exactly same with my dream when I was in Korea. So I thought it was some kind of prediction that I will go to India. There are many other dejavus which I have experienced, and it is always a strange and new sensation to me.
Dejavu is a situation which you think it really happened just like it happened in your dream.
I had many dejavus. There were many situations which exactly happened just as in my dream. When I was in India, I was lying down on a bed, and the telephone rang. That was exactly same with my dream when I was in Korea. So I thought it was some kind of prediction that I will go to India. There are many other dejavus which I have experienced, and it is always a strange and new sensation to me.
2007년 11월 21일 수요일
New media and the modernist concept of progress (11/8)
We have dicussed about modernist and avant-garde.
We can give Picasso as an example for a modernist, and Duchamp for an avant-garde.
Mordenists respect the traditional. Like Picasso, and other artists drew with a brush on a paper with his own way. They respected the traditional way.
On the other hand, Duchamp completely ignored the traditional way. He just put the stool chair in his exhibition.
This is the example of the difference between mordenist and avant-garde.
There is a pictorialist. When photography first came out, the artists were afraid of losing their jobs. But it didn't happen the way they thought. There were many differences between photographs and pictures. People also prefered pictures. So pictorialists came out. They are the people who take a photographs like as if it is a picture.
Well.. there are many technologies developed to make photographs look more like a pictures. Such as photoshop, illustrator, and etc. But I think if you want a real image, use a photograph. If you want something that look more like picture, use drawing. It is best to use either way in specific occasion, since they both have many differences, and good/bad points.
We can give Picasso as an example for a modernist, and Duchamp for an avant-garde.
Mordenists respect the traditional. Like Picasso, and other artists drew with a brush on a paper with his own way. They respected the traditional way.
On the other hand, Duchamp completely ignored the traditional way. He just put the stool chair in his exhibition.
This is the example of the difference between mordenist and avant-garde.
There is a pictorialist. When photography first came out, the artists were afraid of losing their jobs. But it didn't happen the way they thought. There were many differences between photographs and pictures. People also prefered pictures. So pictorialists came out. They are the people who take a photographs like as if it is a picture.
Well.. there are many technologies developed to make photographs look more like a pictures. Such as photoshop, illustrator, and etc. But I think if you want a real image, use a photograph. If you want something that look more like picture, use drawing. It is best to use either way in specific occasion, since they both have many differences, and good/bad points.
Introduction, Measuring 'newness' & Prof. Roger Palmer's lecture(10/30, 11/1)
First in class, we learned shortly about measuring 'newness' by Jeongjin.
We've talked about 'Old media in new times.'
There are many things which are old media in these days.
As said in class, TV also is an old media. But it just changed into a digital TV which actually is a same meaning, but just a technological change inside.
We can see mobile phone as an example too. That's because, it evolved from big house phones.
Old media kept on changing in new forms based on the original form. Even though it kept on changing, the basic needs will not change.
I bet there are many more old media these days around us, but we just can't recognize, since we are not aware of it.
In my opinion, the changings of old media is reasonable. It's because it is based on our basic needs when it was first made, but just adding more of our needs into it.
In Prof. Roger Palner's lecture, well.. it was a interesting but somehow difficult lecture, he had talked on the cultural (mis)understanding through photographs.
I too agree with his words. When I see a photograph, I don't know what it actually means. I just understand with what I know. Since the photograph(media) reflects authur's point of view, it is somehow impossible to exactly understand what the author thinks.
If you see his photographs, you could see that all of the photographs were taken in normal places which gives you a slight allusion. There were only photos and the region names where the photos were taken.
He wanted the audiences to focus on the relationships between the place and the photo. Also there were some different ways when he took the photographs. The one I can remember is that, he took photographs infront of the surrounding frame.
To wrap up, the lecture was interesting and I look forward to see his exibitions in Korea someday.
We've talked about 'Old media in new times.'
There are many things which are old media in these days.
As said in class, TV also is an old media. But it just changed into a digital TV which actually is a same meaning, but just a technological change inside.
We can see mobile phone as an example too. That's because, it evolved from big house phones.
Old media kept on changing in new forms based on the original form. Even though it kept on changing, the basic needs will not change.
I bet there are many more old media these days around us, but we just can't recognize, since we are not aware of it.
In my opinion, the changings of old media is reasonable. It's because it is based on our basic needs when it was first made, but just adding more of our needs into it.
In Prof. Roger Palner's lecture, well.. it was a interesting but somehow difficult lecture, he had talked on the cultural (mis)understanding through photographs.
I too agree with his words. When I see a photograph, I don't know what it actually means. I just understand with what I know. Since the photograph(media) reflects authur's point of view, it is somehow impossible to exactly understand what the author thinks.
If you see his photographs, you could see that all of the photographs were taken in normal places which gives you a slight allusion. There were only photos and the region names where the photos were taken.
He wanted the audiences to focus on the relationships between the place and the photo. Also there were some different ways when he took the photographs. The one I can remember is that, he took photographs infront of the surrounding frame.
To wrap up, the lecture was interesting and I look forward to see his exibitions in Korea someday.
피드 구독하기:
글 (Atom)