24 April: Media Archaeology II

Please post a question as a comment below.

8-track-tape-stack

Advertisements

20 comments

  1. The author talks about how media is not tangible. Since we can’t get media as an ‘object’ (Parikka 129), media is obtained by television, computer, cell phones etc. If media is something not an object and it can’t be obtained, how can we call media we own such as our videos, pictures, dvds etc something we own, when there is more to media than it being seen as something owned?

  2. I am wondering how remakes of movies change media archeology? These movies recall past moments and media, so how does that change of effect media archeology?

  3. The idea of digital archiving is very interesting. I have never thought of it, but now, more than ever, our history is being recorded in so many different ways. Whether it is cctv recordings, high scores on video games, the wall history on Facebook, etcetera. What is your opinion of digital history, and how does it effect you? There is more information about you right now, than there has ever been… Think about that.


  4. I found this video of the author talking more about media archaeology:
    “Some products are considered progressive or futuristic but only become contemporary by assemblage work, by the design, by the finish, or perhaps by advertising rhetoric, We imagine our technological cultures as modern but it is much more complicated.” (37 minutes in)
    He explains in the video that time is pleated or folded, not particularly linear. Are we through discovering new groundbreaking technologies and instead now simply finding new ways to “shine them up”? Are we presently in a remix culture where our products are now just adaptations of older products with clever advertising that convinces us it is new? And if so, what does this say about our culture?

  5. In Jussi Parikka’s “What Is Media Archeology”, the author discusses about noise. In the section called “The physics of noise”, how is noise portrayed as a scientific entity? What is the relationship between science and noise? More than anything, why is noise considered part of the science?

  6. I found the section on digital archieving interesting and rather disturbing so in that sense I agree with Max. Anything that we send online through email, text messages, twitter, faebook, etc. is being stored somewhere and has the potential to be uncovered and analyzed. This allows companies, who find this information very interesting and important for trends, able to use what we are all saying for their gains. Just yesterday I was talking a guy who works in the computer business and he was explaing how google set up a phone service that helped people find info on whatever they were looking for kinda like 411. When people would call in they would record their voices and what they would say and use each persons accent for their computer voice recognition systems. Once they compiled enough information they stop the service because their voice recognition software was complete and could not understand most accents. This launched them way ahead of their competition because their software had been getting better the whole time without anyone else knowing. This is just one example of how our information is being used by big companies for their gains. I can only imagine how else we are being used.

  7. “The present is not a stable ‘now-time’, but a process that in our technical media culture is characterized by processes of software, streaming, encoding and decoding of data and other ways of handling the stream of data as a temporal process” (116 Parikka). With e the ability to streamed events live has allowed people to experience an event as it happens. How has new media changed our definition of the present?

  8. I would like to discuss more about the impact of time when looking at past media in relation to current media culture, with televised news for example. Parikka writes that media archeology deals with “engaging with the past and learning past media cultures in order to understand present mediated, globalized network culture through artworks executed in various media” (137-138). Does televised news, which is so focused on what is happening in the present, use media archaeology in its presentation of current news? In other words, is past media culture influential on the delivery and content of news in our current media culture?

  9. “Archeology becomes a way of understanding how such devices structure the everyday worlds and temporal sequences in which we live in technological societies- but instead of speaking generally about technological societies, they look at the concrete processes and gadgets in which such traditional cultural studies concepts as power now reside” (Parikka, 152). How does technology play a role in our culture’s power structure? Do you think that in the future media archeologists will be able to distinguish our lives from the technology we use or will we become to intertwined? Is it fair to say that our culture does not even exist without the technology we have?

  10. Interesting VIdeo of Neil deGrasse Tyson talking about the movie, 2001 made in the 60’s.
    http://www.wimp.com/futurearrived/

    The creators of the movie 2001 made projections of what the turn of the century would look like and according to deGrasse they weren’t too far off but our current state surpasses what was originally conceived of the film. By looking to the past, Parrika tells us that we can get a better understanding of today. In the past, fascinations of space took off after the launch of sputnik, today we’ve now been to the moon, sent rovers to other planets, and we can go to a movie and have space come alive on screen. The “unknowness” of space has captivated our attention for decades and we have the potential resources and means to probe further and more. so much so that a new mission called “Mars One” is looking for 4 candidates to send to Mars. Here’s the catch. Participants receive a one-way ticket, yup no coming back, so they can establish a colony on the red planet. It sounds like a sci fi movie, right?? What would Parrika say about this? have influences from earlier media regarding space and its outer limits influenced us at all to take yet another giant step for mankind?

  11. How does the black-boxing of global labour in producing assemblages of media and the impact on the environment shape the media object?

  12. In Parikka’s discussion on noise and its purpose he discusses that one approach is its political phenomenon. Is this simply true because of its “organization of modern media?” Does the politics of media archeology’s noise extend beyond that?

  13. Parikka talks about the emergence of new social media archives like YouTube and Flicker, etc… what would Parikka think of Facebook and the some of the more recent archives?

  14. By using the technology that we have developed in the past we are able to continnue to develope it in order to create technological advances that will help us in the future. While reading then reading and the posts I strongly connected with what Max and Nathan were talking about. When you post something to the internet these days it is there forever in cyber-world. While thinking about this I wonder does there come a point when privacy becomes a concern? We are placing our entire lives on an online social network that anyone with hacking abilities can access. It worries me to put all of my information on these sites and I wonder when privacy becomes a facotr in this?

  15. The author states, “the issue of noise expanded from being just an unwanted element to a more defining feature in how sound is being understood.” Page 94) How important might this type of understanding noise might be understood as the changing in meaning of a particular technology? How might sound is understood with the shift of how we understand noise?

  16. In relation to the ideal of sound versus noise, what is The role of sound, and what is the role of noise and media culture?
    It seems that sound is more intentional, whereas Noise become something that we do more in creative styles such as music.
    Also in what ways is noise important when we look at interpreting meaning from messages?

  17. In a response to Stephanies question on her video, which was…
    “Are we presently in a remix culture where our products are now just adaptations of older products with clever advertising that convinces us it is new? And if so, what does this say about our culture?”
    I think that most products today are adaptations of older products but I do not necessarily think this is a bad thing. Technology is developing so it makes sense that we are creating better and newer versions of these products. Out with the old, in with the new. It is not easy to come up with completely new inventions because there are so many creative minds and we can only create new things based on what technology allows us to create. We have our limits with inventing new products, but every day we are working towards new ways to create new products and improve upon our imperfections. We can never be perfect… but it is something we will continue to strive for regardless. Our culture is adapting to new technologies.
    Since there is almost nothing new to create with media technology, do you think this is also the case with all other forms of media?

  18. Nowadays everything seems to be a remake of something or a sample of past media. when did media/culture plateau? and could everything just be an upgraded version of a past thing, remade so many times is original?

  19. To go off of hectors comment yes most things are remakes or adaptations now of days because that is what sells. Roger and Ebert created a scale of originality of movies since the 1920’s and in modern days the originality is at it’s lowest. In the 70’s and 80’s most movies were original and the quality of them were so much higher then. The reason is because it depends on the society and culture and what is in and what people want to go watch and buy. Over the past few years the biggest movies have all been superhero movies except for avatar and Pirates. Because these movies sell why not make more of them. WHen are we going to have more people be in it for the quality of movie and not the money one can make from it? The best original movie in a long time was just Django Unchained and before that who knows.We need to go back to the good times.

  20. I did this reading a bit late, however it was cool to compare media archeology to new media in my last post..which is an unusual reward for posting late.

    In this reading what stood out to me was the idea of the “present”. It was described by Parikka on pages 114-116 as being an intangible here and now concept. The present is “living” with every second and doesn’t stop being the present. However, it seems that with new technology the “present” becomes more tangible and graspable to the average person, at least more in our present digital age then before. How does this new grasp on the present change our lives? I know someone else mentioned it above, but how does streaming live events as well change our lives? and will we continue to get closer to this “present” space with newer and newer technology?

    …..it seems that even with our new technology today live events and streams still do have “lag” and other things that factor in to the “present” experience.

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