Doug Eyman’s section on New Media in his book Digital Rhetoric left me baffled. Out of all the concepts he discusses, this topic seems to be very divided in terms of definition compared to digital or visual rhetoric. Eyman discusses Manovich’s five principles of new media, Packer and Jordan’s five characteristics, and even Wysocki’s definition. Wysocki in particular argues completely against Manovich, claiming there is no human element to his perceived idea. All of this to say, Eyman’s take on new media interests me because he develops a general definition in terms of digital rhetoric. However, I remain utterly confused.
Multiple technologies can exist at the same time, and they do. We still read books, for example, and we still send physical mail to houses. The line between what to consider “old” and “new” media is very blurry to me. Manovich suggests that all new media is digital, and that they must follow five specific principles. Packer and Jordan focus more on the “object” side of things, as Eyman mentions, while Manovich focuses on the “processes of formation” (Eyman 54). Wysocki rejects the entire digital aspect of new media, and she claims that it should “function in the hands of the designer” (Eyman 54). The problem here is that humans mainly design digital technologies, such as websites, despite computerized algorithms. This makes me unsure of it all.
I would like to suggest that there really is no set definition for new media, because things have changed so much over time. One can argue that chronology plays a role in distinguishing the old from the new. Yet with the fact that we still use at least some “older” technologies, this argument more or less falls flat. However, new media could suggest a technological evolution that is ever-growing and shifts between generations.
Leave a Reply