For me, reading “The Medium is the Message” is very helpful in learning where the bulk of today’s media studies began. McLuhan’s concept that it isn’t the art created that is the message, but the actual technology that allows that art to exist is very interesting. He references electric light saying, “Whether the light is being used for brain surgery or night baseball is a matter of indifference.” I understand his point and see how at the time his work was considered revolutionary for discussing this topic, but to me, this argument seems weak. I envision a Russian doll scenario when talking about this. If the “electric light” displaying the images on TV is the message then that would mean that the photon gun in the TV that creates the electric light is the actual message. But metal and other materials make up the photon gun, so are they the real message? I could keep going on, but a line has to be drawn. I believe that the development of electric light has had a great impact on our ability to transmit messages, but it is not the message itself. The first videos of Neil Armstrong walking on the moon, a moment of national pride and togetherness, and ones of Hitler dominating the stage carry two different messages. To say that because electric light allows these images to be shown to so many people, it is the real message, oversimplifies the discussion.
Later in the chapter, McLuhan cites David Sarnoff, who said, “We are too prone to make technological instruments the scapegoats for the sins of those who wield them. The products of modern science are not in themselves good or bad; it is the way they are used that determines their value.” McLuhan seems to disagree, sarcastically saying that Apple pie, smallpox, or guns could be seen as either good or bad. I agree with McLuhan in the sense that there are certain things in life that are inherently good or bad, but Sarnoff’s statement absolutely “bears scrutiny.” There is a large middle ground where a message can be shaped and have a completely different effect on the viewer.
I feel that while the medium is very important in determining how the viewer will absorb material, it is not the most pressing issue anymore. The ease at which anyone can get information from the internet means that the media itself is the most important message, not how it gets delivered to the viewer.
1 comment:
Henry - this is a very thoughtful, balanced and persuasive post. Your photon example is interesting, although McLuhan does not that every new medium incorporates an older one, so the russian doll effect was noted in his book. But Hitler vs. Armstrong certainly makes us reconsider the extremism of "the medium is the message." I look forward to the rest of your blog.
Post a Comment