The Medium is the Message Response
At first glance, the title of Marshall McLuhan's The Medium is the Message seems fundamentally paradoxical. When one receives a letter or an email, we collectively agree that the content of the message is the message. However, McLuhan argues that the medium, or the way in which the content is delivered, is more important and culturally relevant than the content itself. Why is it important that messages are now primarily sent through text or email rather than orally or through writing, and how has this shift in medium affected us individually and as a collective culture? Surely, transitioning from being mass consumers of the radio to the internet has had a dramatic effect on the way we behave and socialize, and this mass change in human behavior far outweighs the smaller contents that accompanied the medium.
What I found particularly interesting was the idea of a medium being given another medium under the guise of being "content". In the past, it has always been taught to me that a piece of art consisted of its medium and its subject matter. However, I had not been giving enough thought to the idea that the subject of a piece can be broken down into another form of medium. For example, my most recent projects could be seen as studies on other mediums. My street photography could be examined as architecture delivered through still image, and my short video projects could be interpreted as performance art being shown through video format. Why is so much thought put into the supposed content of our projects when their mediums often have much more social implications?
McLuhan, Marshall, et al. The Medium Is the Massage: An Inventory of Effects. Bantan Books, 1967.
To try to answer the first question, I think that we may see a lot of information through text and email, but we do not actually see how many still mail letters or communicate orally. Much of our communication is done orally, people talk to people all the time. Email and text are used a lot though because sometimes it is inconvenient or people do not have time to meet with someone or talk over the phone, but they need an answer as soon as possible which is why email and texting is good.
ReplyDeleteThe first point you brought up is a great point and something that I think goes unnoticed in today's society. I think we do still put an emphasis on the form of communication but also weigh the pros and cons of each form. One thing that came to mind was last summer I received a wedding invitation in the mail, but inside had a link to a RSVP website. They wanted the formality that was associated with the invitation, but with the RSVP were fine with receiving an email confirmation. Both forms have an advantage so they utilized different mediums because it was more convenient.
ReplyDeleteThe shift of the medium to being received as a text has made communication more effective and less meaningful. Sure it may be inconvenient to see people every once and awhile, but it has robbed the intimacy that receiving something like a letter holds.
ReplyDelete