2022-05-07
- Continue to think a lot about the idea that “the medium is the message.” Last night, I went to a church for a concert. On my way out the door, I thought about how the environment of a church (the medium) influences the type of message that can be conveyed with the concert. Themes of sacredness/holiness/etc will come through, almost no matter what music is played. Even if the music isn’t designed to evoke those feelings, the setting will ensure an interplay between the musicians intentions and the intentions of the medium. And this applies to basically everything. You cannot go somewhere without being in some kind of medium, and that medium will influence the messages that get sent. This blog is, obviously, a medium. I am much less inclined to publish these thoughts, in this format, on my Instagram story, or on Twitter, due to the perceived capabilities/limits of those mediums (media, technically, sure). So yeah, I continue to be thinking about the power of the medium. And usually,
it’s in the context of “what kind of medium do I want to be spending more time in? what media do I want to spend less time in?” Certain friends/family are increasingly coming up as “media I want to spend more time in.” Twitter/Instagram as “media I want to spend less time in.” Nature also coming up as a medium I’d like to spend more time in. I haven’t spent much time reflecting on the how of switching media. Why is it hard to switch (or in some cases easy)? What does it mean for a medium to suck you in? Presumably the answers here are less generalizable than the original idea of “the medium is the message.” It seems to involve in a large degree the individuals psyche and various securities/insecurities they feel. But it’s hazy, illegible to me how exactly these things fit together, other than in the broadest of strokes.
- Last night, after the concert, I was walking away from the Church, and someone commented on how the music was “too repetitive”. The music in question is a little hard to describe (lots of layered vocals, reminiscent of a church choir), but it was indeed repetitive. What struck me is that this critique was so fundamental, that the person didn’t seem to realize they were critiquing the medium and not the message. And I think this is often an important distinction: are you criticizing the medium or the message? The repetitiveness in question here does not seem like it is something this song does that other songs in the same genre would not do. it’s not a distinguishing feature of this message (song), it’s a feature of the medium (genre of music). But when you go to a concert and end up critiquing the medium, that’s more a statement that you didn’t know what you were getting into vs the message being low quality, in general. It’s like someone going to a forest and saying “I don’t get
the beauty here, too many trees for me.” Like, yes, that’s not even wrong, but it misses the for…well you get the idea. Of course, this critique is something I have heard many times, often about electronic music. And, of course, I have in the past made critiques in the same way (and will likely continue, as this knowledge is not fully integrated yet). But I do think that when I find myself compelled to make a critique like this, that the framing of “medium” vs “message” is useful for turning attention away from external forces acting on me and towards the idea that my critique is a reflection of something important about myself, something important about my own limitations as a person. If I don’t like a song, well, maybe that song is bad. If I don’t like a genre of music, then there’s probably something about me that’s limited vs a whole genre of music being “bad.” Of course, every critique we make (or idea we have) reflects something about us, and is not some objective truth about the
world around us. That’s what having an idea is, it’s something about you. The framing of “medium” vs “message” is a nice way to approach the question of “and what does your idea say about you.”
- Ok, “the medium is the message.” This is part of what excites me so much about computers these days. Still so much room to run with computers as a medium. Like, any time you develop an app, you are creating a medium, which supports/hinders certain types of messages. One of the main bummers of the largest, centralized content/social media platforms is that they restrict innovation in the most popular mediums of expression. Twitter feels like it’s a place for particular kinds of messages (and not others) for a few reasons. One is the structure of the protocol, of course (280 char limit in a tweet). But another is that the way the information is presented, aka the order/UI structure of the feed. But now, imagine a world (the one Jack sometimes talks about) where Twitter the company provides merely 1 feed experience out of hundreds. In that world, Twitter, the company, is mostly providing a protocol (data storage/transmission), and not providing a feed service. This would fundamentally
change the medium, and would thus change what messages are sent/received in different feed approaches.
- Ok, there’s still room to run around computers as a medium of expression. I’m building a little app right now. What kind of messages do I want to encourage? How should the medium be structured to encourage those messages? I don’t really know, but these questions are top of mind rn.
Date
May 7, 2022