Monday, July 21, 2003
I woke up in the middle of the night and asked myself: why are we using a tetradic analysis of weblogging, and why are we using McLuhan, rather than Bolter and Grusin's remediation? Manovich's language of new media? Anybody else's theory. In other words, I woke up with a "so what?" bolt.
So, what do we tell our many readers? The tetrad is cooler? The tetrad is more dynamic? is anybody really ready for a poetic science?
This last one intrigues me: does it make sense to say that we are using a tetradic analysis of weblogging because the tetrad is dynamic, poetic, open to revision, flexible, comprehensive, and generative, rather than static, grid like (despite its box-like appearance), exhaustive . . . .
Let's see if I can approach this another way. Andreas Kitzmann's essay wanted to argue against remediation and use Lyotard's materialist analysis, instead. But ultimately, he ended up asking two of the tetradic questions, and missed two others, while totally trying to exclude remediation, rather than including that within his piece. In other words, he got elaborate about a few things instead of being able to balance a larger picture. He makes some good points, but misses a lot.
part of what drives people crazy about McLuhan is his "big picture" perspective, his lack of concern for the little details. The tetrad is a heuristic for looking at the big picture--based on fairly specific, localized observations. So, in answering "so what" to the tetrad, I guess we are saying we value the big picture because getting lost in the details is not helpful in a period of rapid change. Can we say, do we want to say, we value the tetrad because one does not have to read lyotard (which isn't bad, just time consuming), and one does not have to use words like "complexification" (although "obsolescence" might not work for everyone).
let me come back to B&G, because their remediation is the closest thing to McLuhan's tetrad. They say that new media is either moving towards immediacy or hypermediacy, and those terms have both formal and psychological definitions. WEblogs stylistically embody hypermedia: lots of potential media, text-heavy rather than visually rich, a site of navigation rather than immersion. Psychologically, they are all about immediacy: here is what I did today, here is my heart or brain or libido or all three on the screen. What does a tetrad add to this analysis? Or, how can we get out of hermenutics? I guess that is one thing the tetrad sort of does for us: gets us part way out of hermeneutics, and into invention (tetrad as poem).
Okay, overloading the system, but I think I have it:
1. I do think the tetrad gives us more than immediacy and hypermediacy: gives us four terms instead of two, and gives us the formal and psychological dimensions, I think.
2. Gives us poetic science instead of scientific science: can we convince anyone that poetic science is more (equally?) important in an age / area in flux than is scientific science? McLuhan actually is fond of quoting the scientists who are more comfortable with poetic science than science science.
3. Gives us hermeneutics (interpretation) to a certain degree, but also gives us invention (making something new) from, or in response to, the thing we are trying to understand. This kind of invention is Ulmer's territory.
4. Gives us a big-picture perspective.
5. Gives us density of insight (this might be 4b).
6. Encourages participation and revision: closely connected to point 2. In terms of understanding media, participation, revision, openness to change is central. The theory machines of modernism lead to dead ends. Base-superstructure-dead-end.
What d'yall think?
So, what do we tell our many readers? The tetrad is cooler? The tetrad is more dynamic? is anybody really ready for a poetic science?
This last one intrigues me: does it make sense to say that we are using a tetradic analysis of weblogging because the tetrad is dynamic, poetic, open to revision, flexible, comprehensive, and generative, rather than static, grid like (despite its box-like appearance), exhaustive . . . .
Let's see if I can approach this another way. Andreas Kitzmann's essay wanted to argue against remediation and use Lyotard's materialist analysis, instead. But ultimately, he ended up asking two of the tetradic questions, and missed two others, while totally trying to exclude remediation, rather than including that within his piece. In other words, he got elaborate about a few things instead of being able to balance a larger picture. He makes some good points, but misses a lot.
part of what drives people crazy about McLuhan is his "big picture" perspective, his lack of concern for the little details. The tetrad is a heuristic for looking at the big picture--based on fairly specific, localized observations. So, in answering "so what" to the tetrad, I guess we are saying we value the big picture because getting lost in the details is not helpful in a period of rapid change. Can we say, do we want to say, we value the tetrad because one does not have to read lyotard (which isn't bad, just time consuming), and one does not have to use words like "complexification" (although "obsolescence" might not work for everyone).
let me come back to B&G, because their remediation is the closest thing to McLuhan's tetrad. They say that new media is either moving towards immediacy or hypermediacy, and those terms have both formal and psychological definitions. WEblogs stylistically embody hypermedia: lots of potential media, text-heavy rather than visually rich, a site of navigation rather than immersion. Psychologically, they are all about immediacy: here is what I did today, here is my heart or brain or libido or all three on the screen. What does a tetrad add to this analysis? Or, how can we get out of hermenutics? I guess that is one thing the tetrad sort of does for us: gets us part way out of hermeneutics, and into invention (tetrad as poem).
Okay, overloading the system, but I think I have it:
1. I do think the tetrad gives us more than immediacy and hypermediacy: gives us four terms instead of two, and gives us the formal and psychological dimensions, I think.
2. Gives us poetic science instead of scientific science: can we convince anyone that poetic science is more (equally?) important in an age / area in flux than is scientific science? McLuhan actually is fond of quoting the scientists who are more comfortable with poetic science than science science.
3. Gives us hermeneutics (interpretation) to a certain degree, but also gives us invention (making something new) from, or in response to, the thing we are trying to understand. This kind of invention is Ulmer's territory.
4. Gives us a big-picture perspective.
5. Gives us density of insight (this might be 4b).
6. Encourages participation and revision: closely connected to point 2. In terms of understanding media, participation, revision, openness to change is central. The theory machines of modernism lead to dead ends. Base-superstructure-dead-end.
What d'yall think?
Comments:
Post a Comment
