McCarthy talks about how television as a medium is malleable and heterogeneous in relation to the space it is situated it. The ideology of liveness of the television enables audiences to partake in the same event worldwide, transcending the boundaries of time and space, thus creating an imagined community.
This reminds me of a television commercial which features a toilet prank using televisions. (Refer to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxsJMq22C8). The spatial arrangement of the medium does affect how individuals relate to the context. We are used to the utilisation of televisual mediums for advertising and retail purposes, but just as what this prank has proven, it is precisely because we are used to a particular usage of television, in this case, advertisements in the toilet, we will be surprised when they appear to be used for other purposes. This prank also reflects how television reorganises time and space by creating an imagined community as these men are under the illusion, at least temporarily that the ladies exist in the same time and space as them.
Edwin Lee Xian Ming
In this week, Raymond William discusses the television and the circumstances of its conception. Many questions were raised, such as relationship between technology and society – if television had not been invented, would another technology had been created to fill the void present?
Attention was also brought to the misconception of technology as being a singular entity – often it is the product of several technologies preceding it. For example, television depends on a “complex of inventions and development in electricity/telegraphy/photography” in order to exist. Emphasis was put on how birthdays do not exist for technologies, but rather how they become cultural phenomenon.
The television is also asserted to be a social lubricant, one that embodies a centralized transmission, yet privatized reception. It is through this that it contributes a sense of solidarity amongst people. What I gather from this is the ubiquity of this framework – while the television may not be as influential on the new generations after the baby boomers (namely Gen X and Y), its role has been superseded by that of social media – while there is heterogeneity in the content on social media, more often than not people within the same social circle consume similar content – the closer the social circle, the greater the similarity.
Kelyn Phua
Television entails intimacy in two ways: firstly, it brings your family closer. Secondly, you feel closer to the world by watching the news, travel shows and foreign films by understanding what’s going on in their country and their culture. Just by watching the same shows as your friend, it allows for some bonding. The physical television set with a blank screen also has its effects. For example, the TV room in hall is often off and it is used as a place for gathering. Having a TV there just makes it feel more like home.
The effect of television depends on the way we use it. I personally have little time to watch TV and only turn it on as background noise or when I am having a meal alone. The TV in this case brings me away from people if I choose to eat alone and catch a show instead of joining others for a meal. When I do watch TV shows, I watch it on my computer. Just like most Singaporeans I know, I prefer Korean/American/English films or dramas to local show (assuming without cable). These are more available online and people can choose to watch it as and when they please instead of planning their schedules around it and enduring painful advertisement interruptions. People even watch shows on their phones while traveling. Therefore we need to recognize that the experience and impact of the television, and watching television, varies from person to person.
Muhammad Faisal Bin Zainal Abiden
McCarthy’s notion of television and space, as well as her example, Rio, reminds me of a similar failed ‘experiment’ here in Singapore.
I am referring to TVmobile, a project by Mediacorp to install television screens on public buses. The project started in 2001. At its peak in 2005, almost every bus had a TV in it. The bus was the medium for the TV which itself is a medium. I was in primary school at the time and it was a most unique experience as this was a time before the prevalence of smart phones. Reception was poor however as TVmobile aired repeats of old, boring shows. The replay quality itself is poor with many cuts and lags as the technology was not so developed at the time.
I would argue that putting a TV in a bus would upsets the ‘placeness’ of the bus. The traditional notion of a bus ride involves a peaceful journey, where the only stimulus, the sounds and scenery, are from the physical environment. The TV disrupts this with its artificial visuals and audio. Furthermore, a watching TV is either an individual experience or a collective one, with people you know. Watching TV in a bus full of strangers is thus awkward as the TV has a sort ‘forced socialising effect’ in a place where passengers usually face the front and mind their own business throughout the journey.
It is also interesting to see how one medium, TV, can fail so badly, while another, smartphones, have become the norm in buses. Perhaps the smartphone still retains the sense of privacy and individuality, and hence is a perfect fit for the site-specific place of the bus.
As I consolidated the themes of the readings this week, what came to mind was that television is a unique form of technology as it has unprecedentedly managed to create a sense of placelessness with the utilisation of imagery, text and sound through broadcast. Live broadcasts such as soccer matches and reality shows allow people to witness live events without being physically present at the location itself. During the world cup, people from different nations would be tuned in to the television despite the time differences between the locations around the world. The experience could also vary very distinctly depending on the location that one watches the soccer match i.e. at a bar, community centre, fast food restaurant or at home. It is thus imperative to take into consideration the social , cultural and historical characteristic of a certain location when investigating the impact of technology on a certain social sphere.
Koh Hui Yi
I agree with Williams that when looking at media we have to look at its social history and this actually coincides with what Lynn White talks about. Media tool is not a single invention by a genius. It is in fact an amalgamation of past media devices that have led to its creation. For example, the smartphones that we used today comprises of many functions that are found in the computers and the telephones as well. With every introduction of the new media tools that we come to witness today, we will realized that it will continually alter our perception of the media contents. How we read, understand, consume images, videos, news will be altered depending on the medium which we choose and this can be substantiated by McLuhan’s” the medium is the message”.
In fact , according to McCarthy, television also offers intimacy in a distanciated manner. I feel that this is an interesting perspective that holds true for me. When we watch documentaries, news on TV, we are offered a global perspective on things that happened in another place and possibly at another time. For example, in the documentary, the guide in the documentary would bring you to places, show you events that are happening in another place and yet the direct address which he used as a technique conveyed a certain form of intimacy as you would be able to visualize yourself with him touring these places. However, you are yet seated comfortably at your home, eating while watching which again brings in the idea of comfort and distance at the same time.
Brandon Lye
The reading for this week which I found most interesting was the one by Anna McCarthy. In it, she argues that as we become more and more accustomed to media (such as television), its effects will be minimized. I feel that this is true for contemporary society, as the tv has receded to being a part of everyday lives, and young children don’t find anything particularly amazing about the tv.
I also found Williams’ reading interesting. Williams disagrees with the notion of technological determinism and I am inclined to agree with him. I personally feel that technology and society have a dialectical relationship. For instance, the invention of the gun has profoundly changed the way in which wars are fought and law is maintained. However, the gun was invented in the first place because there was a need for it.
Tiara Robyn Chew
I found Anna Mccarthy’s work interesting, particularly when she discussed the pervasiveness of the television in contemporary society. Especially relevant today, the television has almost been likened to a social lubricant, or a filler in social encounters because of the fact that firstly, it doesn’t require complete focus (as in a cinema), and also that TVs are available in most public spaces, whether in hospitals, bars, even buses (as in the case of Singapore’s MobileTV implementation). In fact, televisions have become so commonplace, so naturalized, that they are part of our everyday existence. This is reflected in a number of academic work, including the Frankfurt school of thought which discusses similar issues albeit in a broader sense. The Frankfurt school of thought discusses the commodification of cultural products (which includes the television) as a result of capitalism, and as such, has become so accessible to the masses that it is no longer a ‘remarkable’ technological development.
An article from The Guardian online (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jun/10/highereducation.media) also centered on this issue, releasing quotes from children as young as 12 years old, who regarded the television as “almost like a member of the family”, and that “you might not be really watching and listening, but it’s always on in the background”, similarly reflecting the notion of the TV’s pervasiveness and naturalization into our lives. As society continues to progress forward into the age of post modernism, media images, especially those on television will continue to dominate our sense of reality with it’s pervasive influence. Media will no longer “(hold) a mirror up” (Jean Baudrillard) to a social reality, but it will be the ONLY reality.
Zheng Wei
In Anna McCarthy article, “From Screen to Site”, she puts up a novel argument against the Frankfurt school of thought where the culture industry indoctrinates audiences towards consumerism, passivity and uncriticality. This is similar to the hypodermic needle theory of media effect that is now considered obsolete, which states that messages of the media is able to bypass our defenses easily, much like how a hypodermic needle allows substance to bypass our skin and muscles and be injected directly into our bloodstream.
McCarthy argues that prolonged exposure to television, and by extension, any media, will cause it to become mundane. We become socialised to the media and its messages have less of an influence on our psyche. In essence, rather than being passive participants, it is said that the masses are active viewers able to discriminate between messages of the media. This is in line with more contemporary media effect theories. Furthermore, it is difficult to say that we are helpless to resist the messages of media in this era of increasing fragmentation of media and multi-tasking. Television may be centralised production, but what about the Internet? Decentralised, individual production make up a large portion of our Internet usage, notably user-generated content like Youtube and reddit. Reddit, particularly, is a forum that is quintessentially decentralised. Any user is able to create a sub-reddit (or subforum catering to his/her interest), not through code, but by filling up a simple form.
Bryan Chia Yong Siang
There were a few things which popped into my mind when I read through the assigned readings for the week. I would attempt make links with the knowledge we have learnt in the preceding lessons:
1) Reality TV shows were mentioned but not exactly elaborated on
Reality shows such as the “Big Brother” was brought up in Ernst’s Reading but there were not much elaboration on it. “Big brother” was a famous TV reality show which took the Europe by storm where participants were placed in a confined environment and every inch of their actions were being scrutinized by the viewers. It was a huge success and many other countries adopted the same concept and featured their own version of “Big Brother”. I believe such success would be linked to concept of pleasure in viewing others as illustrated in Kracauer’s notion of Distraction – where workers come home to watch a TV program for entertainment; providing a temporary mental relieve from working. However, what they do not see is the hidden properties of the production system for the program and such model of production is intrinsic to Capitalism. By drawing a parallel to the workers, the viewers who watch the “Big Brother” can be argued to be watching “themselves” – the actors of the society.
2) Can Mc Carthy’s notion of “space binding” be used for films or even computer games?
Mc Carthy’s notion of “space binding” illustrates how the Television as a medium, becomes the a time machine – where “global” information and knowledge are brought to the “local” and how it has the capacity to store programs which allows viewers to view them when they are free, such that time in a sense is kept in a vacuum. An example of the “global” and “local” would be the news anchor who speaks in front of the camera, allowing the viewer of the news program to be the direct receiver and eliminating the space barrier – as if they are in the same geographical space. I believe the film industry has also adopted similar technique by placing the viewers as the first person to role play as the actors in the recent years. For instance, one of the movies was “paranormal activity” which was film by a hand-held video camera adopted such strategy became a major hit in the cinema when it was first released. Would such technique used by the film industry then be considered as “space binding” as well?
McCarthy talks about how television as a medium is malleable and heterogeneous in relation to the space it is situated it. The ideology of liveness of the television enables audiences to partake in the same event worldwide, transcending the boundaries of time and space, thus creating an imagined community.
This reminds me of a television commercial which features a toilet prank using televisions. (Refer to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIxsJMq22C8). The spatial arrangement of the medium does affect how individuals relate to the context. We are used to the utilisation of televisual mediums for advertising and retail purposes, but just as what this prank has proven, it is precisely because we are used to a particular usage of television, in this case, advertisements in the toilet, we will be surprised when they appear to be used for other purposes. This prank also reflects how television reorganises time and space by creating an imagined community as these men are under the illusion, at least temporarily that the ladies exist in the same time and space as them.
In this week, Raymond William discusses the television and the circumstances of its conception. Many questions were raised, such as relationship between technology and society – if television had not been invented, would another technology had been created to fill the void present?
Attention was also brought to the misconception of technology as being a singular entity – often it is the product of several technologies preceding it. For example, television depends on a “complex of inventions and development in electricity/telegraphy/photography” in order to exist. Emphasis was put on how birthdays do not exist for technologies, but rather how they become cultural phenomenon.
The television is also asserted to be a social lubricant, one that embodies a centralized transmission, yet privatized reception. It is through this that it contributes a sense of solidarity amongst people. What I gather from this is the ubiquity of this framework – while the television may not be as influential on the new generations after the baby boomers (namely Gen X and Y), its role has been superseded by that of social media – while there is heterogeneity in the content on social media, more often than not people within the same social circle consume similar content – the closer the social circle, the greater the similarity.
Television entails intimacy in two ways: firstly, it brings your family closer. Secondly, you feel closer to the world by watching the news, travel shows and foreign films by understanding what’s going on in their country and their culture. Just by watching the same shows as your friend, it allows for some bonding. The physical television set with a blank screen also has its effects. For example, the TV room in hall is often off and it is used as a place for gathering. Having a TV there just makes it feel more like home.
The effect of television depends on the way we use it. I personally have little time to watch TV and only turn it on as background noise or when I am having a meal alone. The TV in this case brings me away from people if I choose to eat alone and catch a show instead of joining others for a meal. When I do watch TV shows, I watch it on my computer. Just like most Singaporeans I know, I prefer Korean/American/English films or dramas to local show (assuming without cable). These are more available online and people can choose to watch it as and when they please instead of planning their schedules around it and enduring painful advertisement interruptions. People even watch shows on their phones while traveling. Therefore we need to recognize that the experience and impact of the television, and watching television, varies from person to person.
McCarthy’s notion of television and space, as well as her example, Rio, reminds me of a similar failed ‘experiment’ here in Singapore.
I am referring to TVmobile, a project by Mediacorp to install television screens on public buses. The project started in 2001. At its peak in 2005, almost every bus had a TV in it. The bus was the medium for the TV which itself is a medium. I was in primary school at the time and it was a most unique experience as this was a time before the prevalence of smart phones. Reception was poor however as TVmobile aired repeats of old, boring shows. The replay quality itself is poor with many cuts and lags as the technology was not so developed at the time.
I would argue that putting a TV in a bus would upsets the ‘placeness’ of the bus. The traditional notion of a bus ride involves a peaceful journey, where the only stimulus, the sounds and scenery, are from the physical environment. The TV disrupts this with its artificial visuals and audio. Furthermore, a watching TV is either an individual experience or a collective one, with people you know. Watching TV in a bus full of strangers is thus awkward as the TV has a sort ‘forced socialising effect’ in a place where passengers usually face the front and mind their own business throughout the journey.
It is also interesting to see how one medium, TV, can fail so badly, while another, smartphones, have become the norm in buses. Perhaps the smartphone still retains the sense of privacy and individuality, and hence is a perfect fit for the site-specific place of the bus.
Here is a picture of what I’m talking about:
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2786/4237079640_c52bbf847b_o.jpg
As I consolidated the themes of the readings this week, what came to mind was that television is a unique form of technology as it has unprecedentedly managed to create a sense of placelessness with the utilisation of imagery, text and sound through broadcast. Live broadcasts such as soccer matches and reality shows allow people to witness live events without being physically present at the location itself. During the world cup, people from different nations would be tuned in to the television despite the time differences between the locations around the world. The experience could also vary very distinctly depending on the location that one watches the soccer match i.e. at a bar, community centre, fast food restaurant or at home. It is thus imperative to take into consideration the social , cultural and historical characteristic of a certain location when investigating the impact of technology on a certain social sphere.
I agree with Williams that when looking at media we have to look at its social history and this actually coincides with what Lynn White talks about. Media tool is not a single invention by a genius. It is in fact an amalgamation of past media devices that have led to its creation. For example, the smartphones that we used today comprises of many functions that are found in the computers and the telephones as well. With every introduction of the new media tools that we come to witness today, we will realized that it will continually alter our perception of the media contents. How we read, understand, consume images, videos, news will be altered depending on the medium which we choose and this can be substantiated by McLuhan’s” the medium is the message”.
In fact , according to McCarthy, television also offers intimacy in a distanciated manner. I feel that this is an interesting perspective that holds true for me. When we watch documentaries, news on TV, we are offered a global perspective on things that happened in another place and possibly at another time. For example, in the documentary, the guide in the documentary would bring you to places, show you events that are happening in another place and yet the direct address which he used as a technique conveyed a certain form of intimacy as you would be able to visualize yourself with him touring these places. However, you are yet seated comfortably at your home, eating while watching which again brings in the idea of comfort and distance at the same time.
The reading for this week which I found most interesting was the one by Anna McCarthy. In it, she argues that as we become more and more accustomed to media (such as television), its effects will be minimized. I feel that this is true for contemporary society, as the tv has receded to being a part of everyday lives, and young children don’t find anything particularly amazing about the tv.
I also found Williams’ reading interesting. Williams disagrees with the notion of technological determinism and I am inclined to agree with him. I personally feel that technology and society have a dialectical relationship. For instance, the invention of the gun has profoundly changed the way in which wars are fought and law is maintained. However, the gun was invented in the first place because there was a need for it.
I found Anna Mccarthy’s work interesting, particularly when she discussed the pervasiveness of the television in contemporary society. Especially relevant today, the television has almost been likened to a social lubricant, or a filler in social encounters because of the fact that firstly, it doesn’t require complete focus (as in a cinema), and also that TVs are available in most public spaces, whether in hospitals, bars, even buses (as in the case of Singapore’s MobileTV implementation). In fact, televisions have become so commonplace, so naturalized, that they are part of our everyday existence. This is reflected in a number of academic work, including the Frankfurt school of thought which discusses similar issues albeit in a broader sense. The Frankfurt school of thought discusses the commodification of cultural products (which includes the television) as a result of capitalism, and as such, has become so accessible to the masses that it is no longer a ‘remarkable’ technological development.
An article from The Guardian online (http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/jun/10/highereducation.media) also centered on this issue, releasing quotes from children as young as 12 years old, who regarded the television as “almost like a member of the family”, and that “you might not be really watching and listening, but it’s always on in the background”, similarly reflecting the notion of the TV’s pervasiveness and naturalization into our lives. As society continues to progress forward into the age of post modernism, media images, especially those on television will continue to dominate our sense of reality with it’s pervasive influence. Media will no longer “(hold) a mirror up” (Jean Baudrillard) to a social reality, but it will be the ONLY reality.
In Anna McCarthy article, “From Screen to Site”, she puts up a novel argument against the Frankfurt school of thought where the culture industry indoctrinates audiences towards consumerism, passivity and uncriticality. This is similar to the hypodermic needle theory of media effect that is now considered obsolete, which states that messages of the media is able to bypass our defenses easily, much like how a hypodermic needle allows substance to bypass our skin and muscles and be injected directly into our bloodstream.
McCarthy argues that prolonged exposure to television, and by extension, any media, will cause it to become mundane. We become socialised to the media and its messages have less of an influence on our psyche. In essence, rather than being passive participants, it is said that the masses are active viewers able to discriminate between messages of the media. This is in line with more contemporary media effect theories. Furthermore, it is difficult to say that we are helpless to resist the messages of media in this era of increasing fragmentation of media and multi-tasking. Television may be centralised production, but what about the Internet? Decentralised, individual production make up a large portion of our Internet usage, notably user-generated content like Youtube and reddit. Reddit, particularly, is a forum that is quintessentially decentralised. Any user is able to create a sub-reddit (or subforum catering to his/her interest), not through code, but by filling up a simple form.
There were a few things which popped into my mind when I read through the assigned readings for the week. I would attempt make links with the knowledge we have learnt in the preceding lessons:
1) Reality TV shows were mentioned but not exactly elaborated on
Reality shows such as the “Big Brother” was brought up in Ernst’s Reading but there were not much elaboration on it. “Big brother” was a famous TV reality show which took the Europe by storm where participants were placed in a confined environment and every inch of their actions were being scrutinized by the viewers. It was a huge success and many other countries adopted the same concept and featured their own version of “Big Brother”. I believe such success would be linked to concept of pleasure in viewing others as illustrated in Kracauer’s notion of Distraction – where workers come home to watch a TV program for entertainment; providing a temporary mental relieve from working. However, what they do not see is the hidden properties of the production system for the program and such model of production is intrinsic to Capitalism. By drawing a parallel to the workers, the viewers who watch the “Big Brother” can be argued to be watching “themselves” – the actors of the society.
2) Can Mc Carthy’s notion of “space binding” be used for films or even computer games?
Mc Carthy’s notion of “space binding” illustrates how the Television as a medium, becomes the a time machine – where “global” information and knowledge are brought to the “local” and how it has the capacity to store programs which allows viewers to view them when they are free, such that time in a sense is kept in a vacuum. An example of the “global” and “local” would be the news anchor who speaks in front of the camera, allowing the viewer of the news program to be the direct receiver and eliminating the space barrier – as if they are in the same geographical space. I believe the film industry has also adopted similar technique by placing the viewers as the first person to role play as the actors in the recent years. For instance, one of the movies was “paranormal activity” which was film by a hand-held video camera adopted such strategy became a major hit in the cinema when it was first released. Would such technique used by the film industry then be considered as “space binding” as well?