4/17: Media Archaeology I

Please post a question on the reading as a reply below.




  1. In using media as a way of expanding on history is questioning subjects of the media an effective way of reaching conclusions? It would seem as if we can assign certain theories to media based on how it is presented but to truly understand what is going on in the depth of a photo or film the subjects would need to be involved in some way.

  2. We learn from media which isn’t contemporary. Media archeology looks at how media has changed and evolved. We look back on past forms of media. There are people who still want to use older forms of media like type writers, old gaming systems or something other than an Ipod to listen to music. Looking back at past technology what has been the largest or most common change in technology which has been apparent to us?

    1. I would say the progression of cellphones has changed drastically over the last 20 years. Patterns of usage, availability, size, 3g (4G or data in general), design, etc have all changed significantly and this has had a major influence on how individuals interact w/ one another.
      Online (from my phone) I saw an interesting picture in Rome when the new Pope was going to make his appearance. The particular article I read had two pictures side by side. One was from when the initial Pope, before resignation, made his appearance. The angle is from the back of the audience and you can see everyone intently looking forward, waiting to catch a glimpse. Fast forward 8 years and a similar picture is taken from behind the audience but this time you can see a sea of lights from everybodys’ phone screens. Everyone had their phones (most looked like iphones) in the air, all waiting to snap a picture.
      More anecdotal evidence: In class we had to do an assignment using calculators, the teacher called out “take out your calcs, let’s begin.” Everybody promptly took out their phones (again mainly iphones) to make their calculations. i felt like the odd ball out with my regular ol’ calculator and my classmate looked at me and said “I don’t remember the last time I had to use a calculator.”
      Phones, especially iphones, have made every tool, template, and task available right at your fingertips. we can do almost anything with our phones and if we can’t we’ll create an app so we can.
      Dan, how do YOU define media archaeology?

  3. “Various studies raise the questions of what it means to be modern, and how new scientific and technological innovations contribute to the changing cultural landscape and even our basic ways of being in the world: seeing, hearing, thinking feeling” (Parikka 7). How would you answer each part of this question?

  4. I’m wondering if what Parikka says on page 24 has any relation to our culture’s materialistic nature. The author says, “the focus on those modes of presenting [representation and presentation] that rely on the astonished embodiment in which the spectator becomes less immersed in the narrative than in the spectacular image-situation.”

    I was just thinking, when I read this, that being focused more on the image, and less on what the image means or says, seems a lot like our materialistic culture. We don’t care what the image says about us, we are just concerned that we have the image. I’m wondering if that is a good connection, or if this means something else?

  5. “this tradition offers a thoroughly layered view of development of modes of sensation always articulated through the outside world, so to speak, replacing the internal-external with a view towards processes of individuation through which our sensation is always on the border of those two seemingly separate worlds. So actually the outside is not the outside,but a fold which affects our capacities of sensation, perception, affection (30 Parikka) .Parikka is saying that the internal-external worlds aren’t as separate as we assume that they are. It is a layer of perception similar to Merleau Ponty’s argument in World of Perception. Do you agree with the author that the outside is merely a perception or can the internal and external be separate?

  6. Does using a older form of media in contrast to modern technology create its own discourse and what does it say about the piece? An example: as one of the groups discussed printing a picture in black and white when we obviously have the technology to print in color. The discourse suggested is there is a sense of nastalgia behind older forms of media. Is that the case for all presentations?

  7. “As a key technology of modernity, cinema has been the core of media-archaeological theories” (p. 8). Has the digitizing media and making it more widespread changed how we think about cinematic culture? Since the 1980s cinema has become much more digitized and can be viewed in more private settings and at your won convenience. How has this effected us?

  8. With the event of media and the internet and how it has that changed how we receive the news is It a positive or negative thing? As on one hand it lets people communicate all over the world together and forms a unity between all however the people that are in control of the media chose what we see and hear and that greatly affects what we think is happening in the world. the media could do so much more but instead all they do is highlight there own good deeds rather than actually trying to help. HWen will this problem be stopped or at least thoroughly recognized?

  9. In Parikka’s, “What is Media Archeology?”, the author discusses about the imaginary media and mapping wierd objects. While talking about images, Gebhard Sengmuller describes the mainstream idea of serial images: “an apparatus that liinks every pixel on the ‘camera side’ with every pixel on the ‘monitor’ side in the technically simplest way possible. Taking this idea to its logical conclusion, this leads to an absurd system that connects a grid of 2,500 photoconductors on the sender side with 2,500 small light bulbs on the reciever side, pixel by pixel, using a total of 2,500 copper wires. In additon, there are wires that supply each of these ‘image transmission’-micro units’ with electricity” (p.41-2). my question is: do any of you think that this description can be true to how films are created? What Sengmuller describes, does it impact the gaze of films?

  10. “new media remediates old media”
    This part of the book talks about how one should breakdown the process of media. it says to look at the middle. don’t look at how it started, nor how it is. how is this helpful? what are the advantages?

  11. On page 31, is Parikka explaining that within the affective model, interiority is not exclusive from subjective exteriority? I just wanted to clarify because he seemed to want to stray from the conventional understanding of affect theory into a new media discourse.

  12. We learn different techniques through history, and its mistakes and advantages add on to what we already know, but do we do an acceptable job in combining both the historical and present?

  13. What might be the epistemological implications that the technical image might have on the new media. The author states, “we started to think the world in new ways, the cinema itself acting as ‘an anthropology of modernity’.” (pg 21) This has perhaps shifted our understanding of self and how we might view the world. The author also goes on to say, “the emphasis on (moving) audio-visual culture has turned into media-archeaological method as well.” (pg. 21) In which ways has this become beneficial to media?

  14. Technological reproduction of images and cinema allows for different perceptions and furthermore different interpretations of the original. Could reproducing movies, videos, and images change the meaning of the original so much to where the original meaning and message is lost? Because I feel like original context of something contributes to its meaning.

  15. Going off of Katrina’s question, how also does the outside world and events effect the way we view images and cinema? For example, a movie that,is remade 50 years later is viewed by a different audience with a different perception on the topic. Therefore, to what extent is it the same movie and to what extent should we view it as such?

  16. The cross cutting of the virtual world, and the mobilized world have definitely been seen through programs like Skype and face time, or even just being able to experience things that you have not had (The opportunity to experience, like different parts of the world through travelogues)… Has this aspect of technology allowed us to be more in tune with what’s happening in various parts of the world, or has it made us more disconnected in terms of what is happening in our own “world” / communities?

  17. Over time new forms of technology have been created and people have learned to adapt and to use the new systems in place. These advances have allowed up to take phenomenal digital photos, film movies with digital animation, connect with people via the internet and so much more. With all of these modern advances in media and technology, I wonder is it ever, and how often, is it beneficial to use older techniques rather than using new modern digital technique implemented today? An example is: Sometimes developing photos by hand in a dark room can be more beneficial than digitally creating a photo, depending on the intended outcome of the photo.

  18. Parikka discusses how early cinema functioned as an attraction, like “fairgrounds and related spaces included new kinesthetic experiences such as ferris wheels, roller coasters, (etc.)…(However) Cinema would radically displace survivals of premodern forms like circus, but would also powerfully constitute itself as a related ‘enclave’ for different modes of regression and phantasy”(33). Do you think films still function mainly as attractions or something more?

  19. I bit late, however I guess better late then never…

    An interesting read. I couldn’t help but think about technological convergence and the idea of new media in regards to discourse. With every form of technology it seems that the older form becomes a basis or foundation for the new media. This is of course in cases of innovative designs, and not entirely new concepts.

    My questions:

    1) Does older media become older because of it’s ties to an older generation?
    – Perhaps the foundation and basis that it was built on, was for a purpose that, at the time it needed to serve.

    2)However, as time went on that need maybe grew smaller?
    -This seems to be true, and leads me to my next question regarding a reading we did after this one in regard to media archeology.

    3)Can we use the forms of old media and the actual physical designs of old media to predict, or trace the path that human communications is going in a larger aspect?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s