This post once again implies that the beauty of art lies not on its message, but rather on individuals have changed in both outwardly transferring and inwardly persevering these messages. Artistry is not in itself the creation of an individualized or novel message, but rather the transformation of the message in such a way that allows observers to perceive such art in a different light or existence.
From this post, it seems rather that Federman's message is that both the message and its medium represent obvious visualizations of a perspective. Less obvious are the cultural changes that surround such a message. An example is the wide acceptance of the light bulb into the homes of billions. While the outsets of this idea was fairly clear (the newfound capacity to work/study/live at night), the consequences of this innovation were less obvious. For example: the extension of the working and living day past sunset and the depreciation and loss of reliance on natural lighting. While the light bulb allowed for further economical and social innovations, the structural changes caused by it are often less focused and encompassing. The medium is the message therefore does not proclaim that the message is irrelevant, but rather attempts to highlight the structural and societal changes that accompany the message.
By messages, I originally thought that the idea was about literal, physical messages, like news, or meaning, rather than pretty much everything in existence that we see. This is something that really resonates with me especially because I always try to focus on the blatantly obvious, as Fenderman points out that so may of us do. Stepping back and taking everything in is something that this class really tries to promote.
Federman's quote is often misunderstood. I believe I misunderstood it a bit when I first read it as well. What he is really getting at is the idea that we as humans have a tendency to focus on the obvious. We look at something and just take it at face value. In our class, we try to get away from that. That's what the artistic process is really all about. We try to craft narratives and focus on things that aren't always so in-your-face at first. In this way we are personifying the medium is the message idea.
I also definitely overlooked the quote "the message is the medium". What this really means instead is that new innovations or inventions are simply extensions of ourselves. This completely changes the overall ideas of art, changing it to be that the art itself is simply the thoughts and feelings as a sort-of physical extension of the artist.
I appreciate what the idea of the medium is the message is trying to convey, however, I disagree. If this is true, then the question that comes to my mind is, then why is more not being done to effectively prevent climate change? Big companies continue to pollute as policymakers and businessmen decide for the masses that the detrimental effects of their actions on the environment are worth the future losses as they reap the present benefits. So then, what is the medium in this case? Is it the pollution, the polluters, or the....And what is the message? Is it the increased awareness of environmental change, the continued denial of environmental change, or is it the deterioration of our environment and the health and weather changes that come with it? From this, it appears to me that the medium is not the message, but rather the message must be discerned from the medium.
hahaha Miss Linda, I love this! Yes, as you've said numerous times in class, the University is the only patron of the arts left, and all the University is after is money, unfortunately.
an institution does not have consciousness (at least that we are aware of), so an institution is doing nothing but continuing to exist. for a while. individuals within the institution do have consciousness, (some) and you can be sure they have agendas concerning dollars and self / institutional perpetuation. the individual and the institution have symbiotic relationships. the university (per se') is after nothing.
"The medium is the message" makes a lot more sense after reading this. With McLuhan's definitions of medium and message we can see that he wasn't just talking about art or news but that he was talking about everything that goes on around us. I agree that most people don't notice the small changes in society but I would argue that you have to have lived for at least a certain number of years before you do because otherwise you don't really have another point in time to compare society to. I also think that what McLuhan was saying makes a lot of sense because he is saying that the new innovation or discovery is the message; that is that the innovation is the change in society. I understand what he was saying with this although I don't really think it influences people's lives on a day to day basis.
I was thinking about medium as message in a much more literal way than this article says. This more metaphorical way of thinking is much more encompassing. I like the idea of a medium being any extension of yourself. In my mind, broadening the term for medium broadens my idea of what art could possibly be.
This post once again implies that the beauty of art lies not on its message, but rather on individuals have changed in both outwardly transferring and inwardly persevering these messages. Artistry is not in itself the creation of an individualized or novel message, but rather the transformation of the message in such a way that allows observers to perceive such art in a different light or existence.
ReplyDeleteFrom this post, it seems rather that Federman's message is that both the message and its medium represent obvious visualizations of a perspective. Less obvious are the cultural changes that surround such a message. An example is the wide acceptance of the light bulb into the homes of billions. While the outsets of this idea was fairly clear (the newfound capacity to work/study/live at night), the consequences of this innovation were less obvious. For example: the extension of the working and living day past sunset and the depreciation and loss of reliance on natural lighting. While the light bulb allowed for further economical and social innovations, the structural changes caused by it are often less focused and encompassing. The medium is the message therefore does not proclaim that the message is irrelevant, but rather attempts to highlight the structural and societal changes that accompany the message.
DeleteBy messages, I originally thought that the idea was about literal, physical messages, like news, or meaning, rather than pretty much everything in existence that we see. This is something that really resonates with me especially because I always try to focus on the blatantly obvious, as Fenderman points out that so may of us do. Stepping back and taking everything in is something that this class really tries to promote.
DeleteFederman's quote is often misunderstood. I believe I misunderstood it a bit when I first read it as well. What he is really getting at is the idea that we as humans have a tendency to focus on the obvious. We look at something and just take it at face value. In our class, we try to get away from that. That's what the artistic process is really all about. We try to craft narratives and focus on things that aren't always so in-your-face at first. In this way we are personifying the medium is the message idea.
ReplyDeleteI also definitely overlooked the quote "the message is the medium". What this really means instead is that new innovations or inventions are simply extensions of ourselves. This completely changes the overall ideas of art, changing it to be that the art itself is simply the thoughts and feelings as a sort-of physical extension of the artist.
DeleteI appreciate what the idea of the medium is the message is trying to convey, however, I disagree. If this is true, then the question that comes to my mind is, then why is more not being done to effectively prevent climate change? Big companies continue to pollute as policymakers and businessmen decide for the masses that the detrimental effects of their actions on the environment are worth the future losses as they reap the present benefits. So then, what is the medium in this case? Is it the pollution, the polluters, or the....And what is the message? Is it the increased awareness of environmental change, the continued denial of environmental change, or is it the deterioration of our environment and the health and weather changes that come with it? From this, it appears to me that the medium is not the message, but rather the message must be discerned from the medium.
ReplyDeletethe medium is $$$$$$$
Deletehahaha Miss Linda, I love this! Yes, as you've said numerous times in class, the University is the only patron of the arts left, and all the University is after is money, unfortunately.
Deletean institution does not have consciousness (at least that we are aware of), so an institution is doing nothing but continuing to exist. for a while. individuals within the institution do have consciousness, (some) and you can be sure they have agendas concerning dollars and self / institutional perpetuation. the individual and the institution have symbiotic relationships. the university (per se') is after nothing.
Delete"The medium is the message" makes a lot more sense after reading this. With McLuhan's definitions of medium and message we can see that he wasn't just talking about art or news but that he was talking about everything that goes on around us. I agree that most people don't notice the small changes in society but I would argue that you have to have lived for at least a certain number of years before you do because otherwise you don't really have another point in time to compare society to. I also think that what McLuhan was saying makes a lot of sense because he is saying that the new innovation or discovery is the message; that is that the innovation is the change in society. I understand what he was saying with this although I don't really think it influences people's lives on a day to day basis.
ReplyDeleteperhaps because 'we' have not been asked to think about these things, only follow along
DeleteI was thinking about medium as message in a much more literal way than this article says. This more metaphorical way of thinking is much more encompassing. I like the idea of a medium being any extension of yourself. In my mind, broadening the term for medium broadens my idea of what art could possibly be.
ReplyDelete