|
More of a "Media Criticism Thread" CSPAM edition but not as a response to anything in any other forums, just a cool place to chill, maybe effortpost about hot and cold media, the effects all that poo poo has on the discourse and politics and the like, etc. I'm curious what media does to people's minds because I'm pissed I can't finish a 200 page book in any decent amount of time and maybe that's just because I'm a dumbass, maybe it's because of ~evil technology~ or maybe capitalism specifically rewards low engagement media as a way to make us think about things less deeply, turn higher engagement media (like the written word) solely into the domain of the elite who they then stock with their own interlocutors. Much to think about. Lib and Let Die, get the gently caress in here.
|
#
¿
Nov 30, 2021 21:52
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:34 |
|
|
I am not much of a media expert and have never dived heavily into McLuhan, just covered him briefly in journalism class, but what I do know is creative writing (somewhat) and part of why I made this thread was to talk about how concrete media adapts our cognition. If I cross over a bit too much into the "message" part, forgive me, but it's always been an interest since I read Understanding Comics as a kid and it really went into the vocabulary of a generally marginalized medium in sequential art. Basically, each medium has its own vocabulary but also its own way of interacting with people's brains. In politics, this is perhaps most famously evinced with the first televised debate between JFK and Nixon where people who only saw it on the radio claimed Nixon won while people who watched television claimed JFK won. Now sure, Nixon had a cold and looked like poo poo, but that's the thing, despite the message being the same, the platform and use of that platform affected the efficiency of the message. This is part of why AOC's whole "the medium is the message" thing is really funny, because she fails to use the vocabulary of her visual medium very well. If you ignore the explicit message and focus instead on the presentation, you have the bloody red of hastily drawn message on the traditionally pure background of white. This insinuates something violent and indeed invasive on a fairly traditional gala dress. The message itself? A fairly mundane and nonviolent "tax the rich." The audience, the gala people, see only something that is at best attention-getting and at worst threatening, but not in anyway provocative towards the content of the actual text. This is a common thing in poorly organized activism, that it operates on advertiser logic, that any attention no matter how negative is good attention. But that fails to use the medium effectively. No confrontational, more proletarian fashion is really evoked, so a lot of vocabulary is left on the floor, and then the artistic choices fail to be persuasive to anyone at the gala. If the message is, "Look at me, I'm AOC," mission accomplished. If the message is tax the rich, well... you probably want something more specific and nuanced anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 1, 2021 21:37
|
|