The Medium is the msg

page: 1
3

log in

join

posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 09:40 AM
link   
Limited to 200 characters or less, and consequently, lacking substance or substantiation. McLuhan nailed it.

Where now ATS? Subsumed, consumed, demolished? Did avaricious bullying win the day but lose the goose? Or will the goose awake, and new gold manifest?





Also see: The Mechanical Bride: Folklore of Industrial Man




posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
To clarify the above haiku for nomnom and anyone else who may have tripped over this thread.

Like America, ATS has been dumbed down. Big time. Partly the result of character restrictions in texting and Twitter, this effect was 'phrophesized' by Marshall McLuhan when he said "The medium is the message." In addition, I suspect that overzealous researchers using the site actively (purposefully?) marginalized and disenfranchised the more thoughtfully prolific volunteer contributors.

It may be that humanity will rise in embracing the new media. It may be research for new media is best served by flippant, misinformed oneliners. Who knows? But the question remains: Where now ATS?



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Have you fallen prey to the very technology you are questioning?
"Medium is the msg"
Have you abbreviated the final word of your title as people do on twitter or Facebook?
Or are you alluding to that popular preservative "M.S.G." to imply that the media is in fact preserving the message?



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 12:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Beartracker16
 


Both.




posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:16 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


It is my hope that out of such mediocrity, quality will once again become realized as more important and valuable than quantity. I look to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as examples of higher tastes in art, spirituality, knowledge etc. growing out of the stagnation of the ages that proceeded them.

Let's hope this is true.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by soficrow
 


It is my hope that out of such mediocrity, quality will once again become realized as more important and valuable than quantity. I look to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment as examples of higher tastes in art, spirituality, knowledge etc. growing out of the stagnation of the ages that proceeded them.

Let's hope this is true.



I am tempted to agree - but more inclined to play Devil's Advocate, and draw your attention to the more simple, elegant solutions. Besides scientists aspiring to simple elegance, many artists and art forms do as well (like Hemingway, Haiku and the post-moderns). Where might such efforts fit in your hopes?



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 02:49 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 



I am tempted to agree - but more inclined to play Devil's Advocate, and draw your attention to the more simple, elegant solutions. Besides scientists aspiring to simple elegance, many artists and art forms do as well (like Hemingway, Haiku and the post-moderns). Where might such efforts fit in your hopes?


Simplicity, when designed, is a sign of intelligence. Simplicity without design always seems arbitrary. In the hands of the masses, simplicity, like in the case of 90% of twitter posts, doesn't yield elegance, but merely a lack of substance. In the hands of an artist, simplicity is designed with elegance and substance in mind.

My guess anyways.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by soficrow
 

Simplicity, when designed, is a sign of intelligence. Simplicity without design always seems arbitrary. In the hands of the masses, simplicity, like in the case of 90% of twitter posts, doesn't yield elegance, but merely a lack of substance. In the hands of an artist, simplicity is designed with elegance and substance in mind.


A philosopher might say that simplicity and elegance are already there, just waiting to be apprehended - no design needed. In the case of the 'perfect brush stroke' for example, thought inhibits - indeed, overthinking is a problem in many endeavors. However, we can agree that innate intelligence or acquired knowledge is required to apprehend said simplicity (and articulate it) - but then, what about the different kinds of intelligence? If one can only appreciate one particular kind of intelligence, does that mean the others have no validity?



PS. I do tend to agree with you - hate that twitter stuff, but hate blowing off the masses more despite the rampant ignorance and stupidity. Mostly, I'm wanting to investigate the potential value of new media's message (and hoping there is some).



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 04:11 PM
link   
reply to post by LesMisanthrope
 


Excellent additions to the thread!



reply to post by soficrow
 


Sofi, you have seen my many online personas adapt over the years. I'm a man who marks high in the sciences and mathematics, yet struggled with grammar and staying on topic in essays. I spent a lot of time improving my verbal abilities. In the end, I learned that to best spread the message, and keep insights cool, you have to base the sentence structure around the freshest cultural vibes being displayed.

That means a certain perception of "dumbing down" is necessary, from the minds of those who hold sentence structure, and grammar in such high regards. That they may overlook the message because of the style, is their prerogative, and in my assessment well worth the spread amongst the common man.

You must speak to each man and woman on their level, and at best all at once. That means layering your speech patterns towards the whole crowd. This is where the artists shine in the new medium's of information/idea exchange via social networks such as twitter, FB, and G+.

It's actually a ton of work to do it just right. You have to create impressions which integrate as you go. So what I'll say is there's a difference between genuinely "dumbing down", and reaching a wide audience. From actually being dumb, and playing dumb. The individual who can speak the truth while seeming like an idiot to the "educated" is actually brilliant, in my assessment. He knows his audience, and plays the role well.

I said probably 3 years ago on this site (under a now retired account), that it's quite difficult for two people with an IQ differential greater than 30 points to effectively communicate. It may be that many who are high brilliant, require a mere brilliant individual to get their message across. Then from a brilliant individual, to a high average. The high average will be your artist who can speak to the common man. {keep in mind, I'm speaking in terms of IQ, and it's just a rough generalization, don't take it too seriously}

So maybe you are playing your role, and it's up to others to "dumb it down"/spread it to a wider audience. Maybe this is happening, and you're simply unaware of it.

I do think that there is an ebb in flow through evolution. That we swing towards one extreme, then another. I posit that we're naturally moving away from the institutions understanding of intellect, to a more creative and raw approach that is inherently anti-institutional. People will judge this as they will. In my view, it's just as it is.

Not sure how far off topic I am with this all. Just putting in my .02

Oh yea, I got a topic started which is somewhat related in my sig below.

~!~ * *↘* ↘* ** **↓* *↓* ↓* ** **↙*
edit on 18-2-2013 by nomnom because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 05:16 PM
link   
reply to post by nomnom
 


Just when I start to think you're a bit of a goofas, you turn around and go all wise on me. Love it.



You must speak to each man and woman on their level, and at best all at once. That means layering your speech patterns towards the whole crowd. This is where the artists shine in the new medium's of information/idea exchange via social networks such as twitter, FB, and G+.

It's actually a ton of work to do it just right. You have to create impressions which integrate as you go. So what I'll say is there's a difference between genuinely "dumbing down", and reaching a wide audience. From actually being dumb, and playing dumb. The individual who can speak the truth while seeming like an idiot to the "educated" is actually brilliant, in my assessment. He knows his audience, and plays the role well.


Yes. Yes. A whole lot of important, worthy work.



So maybe you are playing your role, and it's up to others to "dumb it down"/spread it to a wider audience.


Yes, sometimes. Also, am sometimes figuring things out as I go along and looking for help to go forward in my own direction (not for redirection or dismissal - got to take it through to the end).



Maybe this is happening, and you're simply unaware of it.


Nope - I know - used to purposefully use the method to get suppressed ideas and info into the mainstream. Used to be good at it too, but stopped. However, am just appalled at how awful things have degenerated in my absence.
[No, I'm not really egomaniacal, but I am appalled and somewhat disheartened when I reconnect after a hiatus.]





new topics
top topics
 
3

log in

join