He is clear to state early on that computerization of culture both leads to emergence of new “cultural forms” as well as redefines existing forms (9) – as I understand it, he is confirming that it remediates (as Bolter and Grusin would argue), but that it also leads to emergence (which might cause some disagreement). He confirms his following of Bolter and Grusin’s logic on p. 89 when he discusses human-computer interface as a new media that has been remediated and will remediate.

At the very beginning of chapter one is where I stopped first. He states he maps new media by “placing it within the history of modern visual and media cultures” (8). Manovich asserts that we are in a “new media revolution” where everything is shifting to “computer-mediated forms of production, distribution, and communication” (19). This is fine and good, as any theory of the present is usually not proven until the “present” has passed, but next he says that the revolution now is arguable more profound than the previous revolutions (he references printing and photos). I disagree, and I don’t think that we are at a place now where the true impact can really be determined. He makes a valid point later in the book that this current “revolution” may not ever quit developing (or will never find a ffinal stage), even if it is surpassed by another. Basically he says that the printing press ONLY affected the distribution of media and the photo only affected still images, but his analysis of comuter media’s revolution considers “acquisition, manipulation, storage, and distribution of texts, still images, moving images, sound, and spatial constructions” (19). One could easily argue the same for both the printing press and photography, but he dismisses the notion completely.

Beyond this issue, his mapping parallel timelines between cultural technologies is particularly clean, and his comment “the most likely reaon modern media has discrete levels is becaus eit emerged during the Industrial Revolution” (29) (base don production processes and the logic of the factory – modularity and automation) was particularly intriguing.

His “Blade Runner” reference at the beginning of chapter 2 was effective, as were his comments on media being “‘liberated’ from traditional physical storage media — paper, film, stone, glass, magnetic tape…” (though whether or not it has simply been moved to newer physical storage media is arguable). He is, however, a bit over-concerned with virtual worlds in their current state, in my opinion…

Manovich offers us a logical progression of interface types up until the computer screen, and everything seems to fit nicely into place. His references back to Vertov in the 20′s made a lot of sense. It seemed Vertov wanted to liberate film from this cycle of remediation, placing it in its own category. He did this by drawing attention to the process of creating a film. This helped disassociate the audience from viewing it like they would theater (although most audiences also thought it was a pointless bore). It now seems he wasn’t only trying to break away from former media types, but trying to break away from the screen in a conventional sense. Vertov had several ‘windows’ on screen at once, different video’s playing out at the same time.

These two ways of drawing attention to the screen make sense for their times. In the 20′s, when film was a new phenomena, Vertov packed the screen with MTV-like cuts and layered images . He showed what was usually not shown on screen, like the cameraman, and violent cuts to call attention to the editing process. This was an artists reacting to a new medium within the confines of his technical capabilities. Years later, after many media-related schools of thought formed, the screen could be reflected on in a completely opposite way; by being left blank by Kubrick. Vertov focused on the technical equipment that was used to create film.

In the late 60′s Kubrick created space odyssey which had a more reverent glance at the blank screen the film was projected upon. The entire narrative is created around this idea of how man interfaces with technology (HAL), while drawing the audiences attention to this large rectangular black object; a cinema screen/monolith. What the monolith is is never answered. The entire point of the mission is to understand it; the end of the film is symbolically charged and only leaves the audience with questions. This is perhaps because Kubrick understood that the ‘monolith’, or the ‘screen’, to always be a blank canvas that will be reinvented until man is ‘reborn’ (if thats how the end of the film is to be translated). All this this talk about VR removing the screen and transcending the conventional interface is a huge statement. It brings up the whole ‘are we living in a simulation’ question that was plastered on all the covers of science magazine a while ago. If there was no external border we could point at to say ‘screen’, then so many of our concepts change majority. Perhaps if we do reach and embody the monolith using VR technology, we will be reborn in a way as dramatic as Kubrick illustrated.

Yet the characteristics of the cinematic screen do not seem to fully relate to the computer screen especially if we consider video games and virtual reality environments. This is mainly due to the fact that in new media settings the relationship between the spectators’ gaze and the screen changes dramatically. Voyeuristic and patriarchal gaze has long been a major practice of representation in visual arts where viewers were forced to act as voyeurs identifying with the characters on the screen. Does the same voyeuristic spectatorship role apply to the interactive computer screens’ users? Aren’t computers offering more neutral, normalized, and less controlling screens than the cinematic ones? In fact aren’t the remediated video games and virtual reality environments offering us more control by allowing us to “live” the characters rather than to “watch” them or “identify” with them on the screen?

Unfortunately Manovich seem to disregards these differences and chooses not to address the correlation between screen and gaze (“male gaze”) in new media interfaces. Perhaps ignoring a key issue in the language of cultural interfaces?

During his discussion of screens Manovich writes of Virtual Reality being able to do what no other simulations can by creating either no connection between two different spaces (the one presented and the actual space the body presides in) or creating a perfect replica of the space (113). When a viewer is presented with these conditions Manovich claims “reality is dismissed, disregarded, abandonded”. To some extent this may be true, but Virtual Reality technology cannot contain one element that exists in the space where the body presides; danger.

There is a reason that most Virtual Reality technologies are used as training simulations, they’re safer than using/doing the real thing. It costs less to crash a jet in a simulator than it does in the real world and also puts the pilot at less risk of injury or death. I understand that a user is suppose to suspend their beliefs when using Virtual Reality technology to make themselves believe that they are experiencing real events, but somewhere inside there has to be a level of comfort in knowing that whatever happens you can always dissconect from the simulation or start over again. You don’t get those opportunities in real life.

One could argue that we have not reached the point where Virtual Reality contains danger due to technological constraints, but even the ultimate Virtual Reality spaces like Star Trek’s holodeck don’t contain danger. The dangeronly occurs when the holodeck malfunctions. The intent of Virtual Reality is never to be reality but to simulate it, otherwise what would be the point of having two realities?

I was troubled by Manovich’s discussion of hyperlinking, as well as his sporadic use of the word “language” as a metaphor throughout his book. In his discussion of hyperlinking on pg. 76, he struck me as being overly suspicious of the printed word, writing that “traditional” texts employ rhetoric to “seduce” readers into agreement with the argument (77). This just can’t be true of all “traditional” texts, whatever that might mean. He also completely discounts print-based hyperlinked texts as engaged in a master-slave relationship of footnotes and endnotes(76). It seems to me that in digital hyperlinked texts, the main “page” could be called dominant over the sub-ordinate hyperlinked pages, since we are speaking in terms of metaphorical power struggles. Also, his anti-print bias continues when he identifies the book as a closed container, but a hyperlinked web page as open and continuing ad infinitum. Now Manovich would like to rein in the metaphor of language. However, if it can be continued, it seems to me that the semiotic problems of words in a book exist also on a web page. Derrida has shown how words undergo slippage with his concept of “differance.” So, in this vein, all written words (print or digital) are hyperlinked to other words, “ad infinitum” as Manovich says. I wasn’t fond of his use of “language” as metaphor, and then his literal use of language for the purpose of print bashing. He struck me as an interesting contrast to the “librocentric” specimen. Not techno-determinist, yet convinced that printed words face ultimate upheaval.

Also, It reminded me of your David of the about how you saw video of the airplane crashing into the Hudson River posted by a person from their cell phone from the scene. The vast amount of video on the web is very interesting. For example, CNN invites the user to post video of events on CNN.com. the user contribute to the content of a syndicated Broadcast network?

Manovich also speaks about the hypermediacy of new media. While new media is, of course, is the most easily recognized example of hypermedia, I believe he addresses hypermediacy in new media as an entirely new occurrence. (I didn’t really take much notice of the repeated referencing to old media in this particular instance, in fact I saw the exact opposite.) There are elements of hypermedia in everything from literature to sculpture to oration, all of which existed well before “new media.” This is more of a tonal critique in that he ignores that hypermedia is nothing new. Isn’t looking up a word after reading it in a work of literature the exact same thing as a hyperlink?

He also speaks of the “cultural layer” and the “computer layer” of new media (46). This is a great way to parallel the affects of media; however, the “computer layer” is, again, nothing new. The “computer layer” Manovich speaks of does not mean computer, it means technical. The printing press also had a technical layer in the specific effects of the act of printing and what the action and technology of printing would eventually evolve into. This runs parallel to the extreme cultural impact (nationalism, democracy, Protestantism) that was also caused by the printing press. I guess what I’m trying to say is that is that if the ONLY stage of communication that was affected, media would have never evolved into the “new” and would also not have an established path for “cultural layers” to occur.

The author asks “does it make sense to theorize the present when it seems to be changing so fast?” I ask the question why not? Why not define today and compare it to yesterday and tomorrow? The author gives me the notion that the computer is really only good for two things, storing information and displaying information. Yet when you think about the computer and the World Wide Web it is hard to not think of the computer as so much more. Hasn’t the computer completely transformed modern culture? The author also talks about the computer functioning as a window into an illusionary space. I am not sure I agree with this statement and his reasoning. Why is it illusionary?

One thing that made it really interesting for me was his level of knowledge and understanding he had with the “new media”. Granted he wrote the book, but not only does he grasp the theory, but intricately understands each software that needs to be manipulated to create these media. From adjustment layers, and workflow of other popular adobe suites and modern programming language sequences was thoroughly examined. In a way, I was quite envious of the author’s pedigree. He lived through and saw the rapid transition of advancement of this new media and the technology it accompanied. For everything I take now for granted, I am sure he appreciates it at a different level then I can possibly imagine.

New media, like pop culture, is a very mis-used word. He attempted to differentiate his definition by explaining how new media derives from a digital code, and old media is well, abscence of the digital code. Does he mean that the process of which the media is created with new and old media or the final form of presentation and the method of distribution that makes it new and old media. There are still quite a bit of photographers who take pictures with analog cameras using traditional roles of film to produce their pictures without the help of digital media. Then they will touch up and distribute digitally using computers. Everyone names the media which they have available at present, new media, and I am sure that with every “new media” that came in the past, everyone was so sure, that this is a definite definition of the new media. There are many hybrid media which utilizes both analog and digital methods to produce final products. How would Manovich categorize them?