Tag Archives: Old Media/ New Media

The Big Difference Between Old Media and New Media

Posted on by
4

Michelle Levy and Tom Mole’s introduction to The Broadview Introduction to Book History gives a comprehensive overview of what to expect and what you should know before reading the upcoming pages.


I found myself thinking about books as a form of technology while reading this text. The modern technology I am most familiar with is computers, which also has epochs that reflect books. The transition from scrolls to the codex could be seen as a form of making written technology more efficient. Similarly, computers were initially massive, clunky, and much slower than a persons’ calculations. Over time, they became efficient and cheaper to produce (as reflected by Gutenberg’s printing press).


More and more people begin to work with computers as they become more accessible. Computers go from something that could only be found in the military to something only in the university. From there, it gradually becomes more accessible to the point that it is in most homes. This accessibility (as reflected in the fourth epoch of books) creates what could be argued as a “computer culture” in the West, exemplified by the graphic below.


Where this parallel breaks down is in the fourth epoch, “when print faces competition from an array of new media” (xvi). That may very well be because we haven’t reached that point yet. It could also be argued that the competition is AI. I would disagree with this, however, because AI does not seem to be a radically new technology. Rather, it is an example of the massive increase to the computational power as a result of Moore’s Law.


I am unsure how to feel about the concern that screens make us “worse” readers and putting a value judgement on “extensive” versus “attentive” reading. As mentioned in Professor Pressman’s article, Old Media/New Media, Marshall McLuhan says that “we march backwards into the future” (1). Is there something inherently bad about reading a few works extensively as opposed to many superficially? Could the end product be the same? Does it matter? Could it be, that our nostalgic love for books is painting how we see reading in the modern age? These are all questions that I am not sure I have the answer for yet.

Why invent ‘new’ media?

Posted on by
1

While reading both texts for this week, there was a specific quote that caused me to question why ‘new’ media is made/pursued. The quote is as follows: “Yet the work of the new is precisely what inspires us to reconsider the old and to recognize the intersections and convergent histories of old and new” (Pressman 1). This flip of thinking about ‘new’ and ‘old’ media from the perspective of new to old is what caused the question of why people decide to make ‘new’ media to surface in my brain. And the answer I came to is that the ‘new’ media often has an aspect that ‘old’ media does not, and that aspect generally makes the dissemination of ideas and knowledge (etc.), faster, easier, more efficient, and more widespread. People decided to advance their existing media into ‘new’ media to achieve those aforementioned goals of faster, easier, more efficient, and more widespread distribution of ideas and knowledge (etc). Because people naturally want to share their ideas and knowledge. While I read the Broadview text first, the quote in Dr. Pressman’s article caused me to look back to the first reading, and connect it with the previous question and answer. In the Broadview text, each new iteration of media/technological advancement (scrolls, codex, printing press, decrease in printing cost, and the addition of the internet) had a shorter timeline than the previous (also stated previously in class). This is due to the why question posed at the beginning of this blog, and its subsequent answer. The more advanced things got, the quicker information spread, and people were able to come up with new ideas in a quicker/easier fashion, that then become ‘new’ media. While the book as a medium can be considered ‘old’ media to some degree, even something like sprayed edges and more creative cover designs adds a ‘new’ element that causes those books to be more widespread and in a way ‘new’ media because it has become more than ‘just’ a book. (I’ve definitely bought a book just because I liked the sprayed edges and cover design—I actually really enjoyed the book, but originally bought it because of the book’s physicality as an object, or what Dr. Pressman would describe as bookishness). Sometimes, more people are likely to buy a book because of the aesthetics, but also end up genuinely enjoy the text or story inside, but it wouldn’t be as widespread if it wasn’t as attractive physically (some people do judge a book by its cover).

Week 3: Intertwined Archaeal of New/Old Media

Posted on by
1

Our class readings this week felt like an awakening moment for me. For the past two weeks, I found myself perplexed by the discussions we’ve had in class. Not because the information being shared was a foreign concept, but because I was peering through a narrow-minded lens stating that the shift between new media to old media is a linear historical narrative.

Dr. Pressman unveils in her essay “Old/New Media” the term “bookishness” where the new digital media carves the new purpose for the traditional codex. Books are no longer depicted as holders for information, but as works of art, aesthetic objects, or even a multimedia experience. The simplistic linear ideology of “out with old and in with the new” is challenged as new media reinvents and adapts the purpose and perception of old media. Therefore, creating a boundless cycle of relativity to the term “new media.”

Reflecting on this, I began to connect Dr. Pressman’s idea to the digital text we debriefed las week, Mark Marino’s Marginalia in the Library of Babel. Marino’s work highlights how media forms are always shaped by the cultural perceptions of what is “new” or “current” media. For example, new media mindsets have encouraged us to regard books as objects of desire with symbolic and artistic value. On the other hand, less formal forms such as annotations in the margins or simple yellow Post-it notes inside a book do not carry the same level of prestige. While books are held to the highest of regard because of the ideals set by “new media,” personal annotations are viewed as disposable, even though they also contribute to the layered history of texts are used and interpreted.

Here I remain curious and my questions still remain. What determines the hierarchy of celebrated and dignified medias? How are we to excavate an object of knowledge knowing that it will continue to be ever changing? Or even how will marketing ventures utilize the study of book history to their advantage?

Bouncing between word, text, and the signifieds– Josue Martin

Posted on by
Reply

The impression given by the “new media” is somewhat enigmatic– acting as a binary with what the old media constitutes– meditating in the intricacies of time and technology and, allows us to deconstruct the relationship between these two processes (thanks Derrida). In Derrida’s Archive Fever, A Freudian Impression, he is concerned with the archive– a term that has various meanings; one that is concerned with two topics–the principles of nature or history and physical and historical processes. Both principles and concepts shelter themselves as he mentions, “The concept of the archive shelters in itself, of course, this memory of the arkhe. But it also shelters itself from this memory which it shelters: which comes down to saying also that it forgets it” (Derrida 2). The paradox described by Derrida where the archive both shelters and forgets resonates with Dr. Pressman’s emphasis regarding “new” and “old media”. The terms “new” and “old media” are not fixed but shift as they are social-culturally adaptive– meaning that their definition is relative to the time period in which they are being discussed as media itself is not linear nor stable. For example, let us remember the beeper— in its time, it was a revolutionary method of communication that made other communication devices “old”. And, it is now a system that is considered obsolete– demonstrating that newness is not an absolute but contingent on new modes of inscription. This is further illustrated by Bolter’s and Grusin’s writings, “comes from the particular ways in which they refashion older media and the ways in which older media refashion themselves to answer the challenges of new media”. The paradox described in the archive demonstrates the conventions of recursive media/ life cycles– we preserve to forget and forget to preserve, deconstructing two mutually formative processes that demonstrate how different modes of media are concerned with social-cultural values rather than its materialistic characteristics. This suggests that media is not linear nor fixed but adapts and evolves by reinscribing new modes of inscription that surpasses its predecessors– not materialistically but shifting its focus from a cultural paradigm.

Week 3: Already Thinking About My Final Project

Posted on by
1

While reading this week’s texts, particularly “Old Media/ New Media” by Dr. Pressman, I started getting ideas for my final project. (Or maybe just a personal project.)

The project would be made up of two texts written by me, one physical and one digital. It would also incorporate text and images from whichever special collections text I choose. The physical text would use asterisks, numbered citations, or maybe emoji to “link” to the digital text. The digital text would be an index of hyperlinks, quotes, and other footnotes for the reader to understand the physical text better.

Themes that might be explored in this format:

  • Old vs. New media: The project would question the distinction between “old” and “new,” referencing Dr. Pressman’s writing on Bolter, Grusin, and Hayles. Regarding “Remediation” and “intermediation,” I could show how the physical text and the digital index influence each other and how they’re influenced by other media, both “new” and “old.” Both texts would be influenced by the special collections text, and that text may also be influenced by my project. My interpretation of the text through “new” media might influence how that text is seen by new readers. Readers who already know that text, however, might approach my project differently.
  • Detached Footnotes: Going back to our conversations about Marino’s Marginalia, this project could be about what happens when the marginalia is separated from the text. Eventually the medium I use to create the digital index will become defunct. The one copy of the physical text might be destroyed or kept somewhere inaccessible to most readers. How could someone read one without the other?
  • Subconscious influences: This morning, I texted Raine some of these ideas. It turns out that he started a very similar project last year. I’m not sure if he’s told me about that project before, or if we happened to grab our ideas off the same shelf in the Library of Babel, but the idea of uncertainty as to where ideas come from is one I want to play with in the project. A lot of the digital index will be references to my influences. But what about the ones I’ve forgotten?

This isn’t a project proposal, obviously. It’s a vague creative daydream. Not to be taken too seriously, yet. I don’t even know what genre it should be. Will this be a fictional story? A collection of poetry? Non-fiction prose? All of the above? I probably won’t know until we’ve visited Special Collections. Now that I have an idea of what I want my final project to look like, though, I might be able to quickly home in on a book that could play in this space. Looking forward to this week’s classes even more, now!