The introduction of the concept of new media to the Digital Rhetoric: Theory, Method, Practice by Doug Eyemans points out the fact that is slowly becoming more apparent but is seldom explicitly articulated: there is no consistent definition of what a new media is- and that is the point.
Technology vs. Human Design
The most notable thing in this excerpt is the fact that the concept of new media is not a static one but a moving target. Eyemans draws on such scholars as Cynthia Selfe, Lev Manovich, and Bolter & Grusin. They demonstrate that any effort towards defining the new media ends up being defined by the moment in history. Differently put, what we currently refer to as new is bound to become old tomorrow. That is not a weakness on its part, it is its characteristic.
The difference between Manovich and Wysocki particularly became of interest to me. Manovich is more concerned with the technical architecture of the new media. Such as numerical representation and modularity, simply on the grounds that the newness of media lies in its calculability. However, Wysocki changes the focus to human conscious and design. He indicates that novel media is created when the creators move towards emphasizing. Mainly by the way in which texts are put together and it is consumed.
Why This Matters for Writers
Eyemans does not impose one solution and that is the reason why his argument is convincing. Rather, he presents new media as a phenomenon that should be interpreted in various ways: in the technological, cultural, rhetorical, and historical perspective. This is in line with the assumption that digital rhetoric is not simply about the analysis of tools, but about how the meaning is produced in various modes text, image, sound, and interaction.
The other important lesson is the notion of remediation by Bolter and Grusin. The notion that the new media is continuously transforming the old one (as well as vice versa) seems particularly timely nowadays. Consider the way the social media platforms steal television. Or the way the podcasts resemble the radio and simultaneously transform it. Media does not supplant the predecessor in any way, but it adds to it.
Instead, Eyemans proposes, it may be restrictive to attempt to give a definition of the new media a lock down position. Rather, it is the fluidity of communication that we should welcome to understand more about the dynamic of communication. This view is paramount in such disciplines as writing and composition. When students are becoming more and more encouraged to operate in a variety of formats and platforms.
Leave a Reply