Forgive My Ignorance: Thoughts on Murray

Excuse my confusion. I was criticized frequently in graduate seminars that I quibbled too much with the linguistics and bought into the myth of needing to "tear down" or challenge a reading, and I desire to avoid that pit.

However, in the course of reading Murray's introduction, I couldn't help but twitch at certain moments that rankled. Let me give an example.

...the term "new media" is a sign of our current confusion about where these efforts are leading and our breathlessness at the pace of change, particularly in the last two decades of the 20th century. How long will it take before we see the gift for what it is--a single medium of representation, the digital medium, formed by the braided interplay of technical invention and cultural expression a the end of the 20th Century?

She asks a question, and I assume that means an invitation to dialogue. How long will it take indeed?

A "Gift"?
Well, let's set aside the large presumptions that this is a "gift," implying both a singular entity and a "giver," along with the supposition of some measure of benevolence.

A "Braid"?
So, assuming that "new media" is "good", "singular", and a "gift", then we have the issue of whether it is formed by this "braided interplay of technical invention and cultural expression". Like the gift metaphor, the "braid" carries a purposefulness with it that I'm not convinced exists in the new media today. It seems much more like when one tangles a mess of yarn and then has a few people work to untangle it. Some, will take the time to methodically find and work from a loose end and carefully wind the end as they move. Others will grab joints and try to loosen/organize these nexuses. Still others, mostly my son and cats, spend time enjoying themselves. Finally, some might find ends, unravel a bit, knit what they want, and then charge for access.

Whatever the case, new media are not braided together. This is something,
but it's not a braid.

A "We"?
Finally, the question assumes that "we" most/all have access to technologies of production and consumption. Of couse, Murray could be referring to the "we" in the educated, elite, but that appears to reinforce the "us" v "them" mentality that was appropriated by critics of higher education. The simple truth is that the class divides that are increasing carry with them significant digital divides in terms of access and literacy. The ability of peoples without training in the access and understanding in these media have placed them behind the curve that increases term by term to require fundamental knowledge of using computers, e-mail, twitter, Blackboard, and other new media elements.

But, that deals with "selection", which will be a major part of my interest in V. Bush's "As We May Think"

I'm Back!: New Media Faculty Seminar!

After a hiatus of a couple years (including blogging over at a Relief for a while; please feel free to go and seek them out), I'm baaaaack!

This is due entirely to signing up for a Faculty Development Seminar on New Media Seminar that I'm very excited about. Although my field is not really in "New Media", I feel that I'm quite often pushed into this role within my department by virtue of being 10 to 20 years younger than most people in the department.

In addition, I'm beginning to see a lot of overlap between my research in the ethics in and of genre narrative and the ways that communication is and might change.

So, I'm going to be taking the questions of the course "How do we use new tech?" and "Do we use it as it's intended?" and applying them to my thoughts in movies, popular novels, TVs, and video games, particularly with those connected to the moral quandry of the individual within the corrupt world with flawed social institutions (what I refer to as "noir").

In the next post towards the beginning of next week, I want to provide some of my first impressions based on Janet H. Murray's "Inventing the Medium" intro to The New Media Reader

The Importance of Being Ernest...

Names are so important in life, but at the same time, they don't really matter because they ARE arbitrary. My wife and I are struggling to find names that might communicate the perceived possibility of our baby. Of course we have no real idea what this child will become, but being first-time parents, we want to positively influence our oldest child to be the coolest, smartest, etc that they can.

I've been told and heard that this radically changes with a second and subsequent children. Being a second/middle child, I understand why and how this occurs, yet I am not immune to my psychology's attempt to determine the need for us to choose THE perfect name for our son.

Furthermore, being a student of semiotics and cultural studies, so many different and competing drives enter the equation. I want to choose a name that will give my son some gender fluidity because I don't want to force hegemonic (yeah, I used that word, whatcha gonna say about it?) masculine ideals on him, say "Hank" or "Dick". At the same time, knowing the strength of power in culture, I do not want to be too out there and leave them open to painful and potentially scarring him by the years of jeers and beatings that my sons will probably be subject to just by the fact that they have me for a father, say "Claire" or "Rene".

In addition to gender distinctions, there are obvious ethnic, racial, and ideological influences. We want to communicate our faith and family backgrounds but do not want to force that on our child but would prefer that they express that interest as a choice.

This does not really represent a wholly intellectual pursuit either. We also want to have a pleasant aesthetic sense in a name that will will probably end up calling and saying and yelling for the rest of our lives.

All of this rigamoral of discussion is just to say: If you have suggestions of guides or names that would fulfill all of these criteria, then I am open to suggestions.