Re: [Air-l] Internet as medium with different sub-media or channels?
Equally humbly seeking further information in relation to Bob Rehak's very interesting contribution (and expressing my appreciation to those who posted the related things), I quote again (apologies again for the awkward form & single quotes) what Bob wrote: 'My question, then, is this: if packet transmission methods are specialized according to different end needs, then doesn't this argue for the presence of the internet as a medium, in the sense that its protocols are made to serve specific expressive functions? If all packets are not created equal, then we can't reduce the model to "the packet doesn't care what data it carries." 'To return to the analogy of the printing press, perhaps the press *is* just a tool for replicating content -- but if its design includes the ability to handle different fonts, colors of ink, sizes and types of paper, etc., then the "hardware" is materially implicated in the medium's expressive activity.' I'd like to comment that I see nothing illogical (or technologically unsound?) about calling the Internet a medium, which it seems to be, (and in a/some layered form). But while "the 'hardware' is materially implicated in the medium's *expressive* activity" does it follow that the hardware can be assigned an *affective* activity? In the spirit of the seeker, William Bain, UAB, Barcelona --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail Use Photomail to share photos without annoying attachments.
Beware the approaching parentheticals.
I'd like to comment that I see nothing illogical (or technologically unsound?) about calling the Internet a medium, which it seems to be, (and in a/some layered form). But while "the 'hardware' is materially implicated in the medium's *expressive* activity" does it follow that the hardware can be assigned an *affective* activity?
Not to delve too far into a pattern of unrestrained radical semiosis, but... If an [abstract concept - in this case internet] is acknowledgedly "meta" - in that the functions of the parts are named, negotiated and given purpose by human users of those parts - where do we draw the line between 'the medium' (whatever it is...) and the *instantiations* of that medium? I'd be perfectly happy to agree (!!!) that there is perhaps one rough model of use-of-internet-as-medium that is taken up by blog readers... another model taken up by those who are only interested in instant messaging... and another taken up by those who are interested only in digital broadcasting (e.g., podcast creators), and another taken up by MUD/MOO/MUSH/MUCK users... but when do these *aspects* become "media" themselves, rather than a part of the looser "that internet stuff"? [Channel theory? Genre theory? Bunch of things seem to converge nicely here...] [[Now I'm feeling all qualitative-descriptivist... interesting :) ]] I do realize, like several others, that this conversation is tending to loop back on itself... it is interesting, though, that so many of us are engaging in the same patterns of contemplation :) Maybe we're onto (or just ON...) something, huh? --elijah
As a newcomer to this (list and research area) can someone suggest where I might start getting to grips with some of the key theory and terminology? before I get a long list I should perhaps explain my interest first! I'm a radio-studies academic now researching and writing about Podcasting. So the debate here about 'Internet as medium' is especially useful, enthralling and increasingly baffling. Can anyone advise on or off list? All the best Rich -- Richard Berry Community Radio Project Manager Admissions Tutor: BA (hons) Media Production (TV & Radio) The Media Centre University of Sunderland 0191 515 2239 Visit: www.sunderland.ac.uk/radio www.radiostudiesnetwork.org.uk
participants (3)
-
elw＠stderr.org -
Richard Berry -
William Bain