Readings Due Next Week (9/13):
Henry Jenkins, “YouTube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic”
Bruce Sterling, “The Dead Media Manifesto”
Timothy Druckery, “Imaginary Futures”
The following is the (fairly lengthy) quote from Erkki Huhtamo that opened the lecture today. Having engaged with various issues related to media archaeology in today's class, respond to Huhtamo's contentions about the differences between traditional history and the type of historical engagement offered by media archaeology.
"[H]istory belongs to the present as much as it belongs to the past. It cannot claim an objective status; it can only become conscious of its ambiguous role as a mediator and a "meaning processor" operating between the present and the past (and, arguably, the future). Instead of purporting to belong to the realm of infallible truth (with religion and the Constitution) historical writing is emerging as a conversational discipline, as a way of negotiating with the past.
I would like to propose [media archaeology] as a way of studying such recurring cyclical phenomena which (re)appear and disappear and reappear over and over again in media history and somehow seem to transcend specific historical contexts. In a way, the aim of media archaeology is to explain the sense of deja vu when looking back from the present reactions into the ways in which people have experienced technology in earlier periods."
75 comments:
I want to focus particularly on what Erkki has to say in the second paragraph of her quote. She says that basically, all media in the past comes back in new forms of technology in one way or another. In other words, all old media affects the new. It's like what any artist will tell you, no artist creates in a vacuum. Essentially, all artists rely on other artists for ideas. The same thing would go for any art, or anything in general that is creative. A business plan, for instance, a new clothing design, or even a marketing campaign. All creative or created things come from something else that was previously created. In addition, certain things in one media may help with several other new media. Like what Jenkins says about Vaudeville versus YouTube. Even though Vaudeville was an extremely early art that had previously long since died out, elements of it can still be found in YouTube. Not only that, but even though Vaudeville as a medium has died and even though it is strongly in a sense, "rebirthed" in the new medium of YouTube, it never truly died. Vaudeville elements still existed in other mediums. Film often used it, and even TV shows have alluded either to it especially, or used elements of it in their series. Basically, Vaudeville touched many types of art simply by existing. If we had never had Vaudeville, how would our movies and TV shows look now? How would YouTube have looked? What's more interesting to me, is how will YouTube affect future mediums? It seems we are headed toward a society of self-made artists. Anything can be art nowadays. If a filmmaker can be birthed online through a cheap digital camera, what will the future blockbuster film be? A self-made documentary about your bed?
~Jackie Bentley
In response to Huhtamo’s strife concerning media history and how it seems to transcend historical context, there is a history and a future of media convergence. Older forms of media are reappearing in newly developed forms or concepts of media. The news was earlier dispersed through a media outlet developed early on, newspapers. Now this old form of media can be accessed through new forms of media (via World Wide Web). This is a very efficient means of accessing news, as well as meaningful. Timothy Druckrey states that ‘“rubbing together” of histories is a metaphor for contemporary media culture with mixtures of new and old technologies.’ There are contents being mixed together. In the Jenkins article, he impresses upon us the idea that elements of Vaudeville are to be found in You Tube. Like Vaudeville playing a function during stages of colonization and immigration, You Tube is playing a role in globalization. You Tube is a great outlet for independent filmmakers to showcase their work, or for artists to perform in front of a camera when they would not necessarily have the funds to exhibit their work in theaters, or in Blockbuster movies. In class it was stated that we control the information age; that we are the gatekeepers. However, generally speaking, the gatekeepers tend to be those of a certain race or with a higher income (especially if their product is shown in the movie theaters). You Tube offers those with different social and economic status’s the opportunity to become the gatekeeper, especially with You Tube streaming virtually almost anywhere. These gatekeepers may have different views and opinions that are ordinarily impressed upon us by other forms of media (television, movies, etc…). If You Tube becomes the new blockbuster movies, it is proof that people will experience technology differently. (Especially if there is a newer message or perspectives of a previous message being broadcast to the public). You Tube is a mix of different cultures, cultures that may not always have had the opportunity to express their ideas or opinions through other media outlets.
-Jennifer Kreuser
There is part of me that wants to say, yes! hooray for the cyclical nature of history and that to think of it a linear is a very limited view. However this somewhat saddens me to believe that if all media comes back from the past and is reinterpreted in the present then will there ever be a genuine idea, one that has never been thought up of just remade from something in the past? If this is the case then thinking about media archeology may as well be saying that no matter what we do, we will be confined to the cyclical nature of what we have created.
~Braulio Garcia
Huhtamo investigates the differences between traditional history and a new examination of history that media archaeology offers. As Huhtamo states, “[H]istory belongs to the present as much as it belongs to the past…” What Huhatmo is essentially saying is the fact that each new idea that an artist has can be linked to the past and previous ideas. Media archeology examines medias of the past and of the present and explains how they rely on each other to present new ideas and medians. Without the phonograph, the CD or Itunes would have never existed. Newer forms of musical media rely on the basic idea of the phonograph, to play recorded music out loud for the listener.
Each new idea is sparked from an old idea and through media archaeology we are able to examine the non-linear road that artists have gone down in order to present or express a particular thought. There are so many different ideas to draw from throughout human existence that there is not one specific truth or linear history to study but rather an array of paths that creators and artists have taken in order to create new medians.
-Jacob Feiring
The idea that Huhtamo is getting at, and theoretically the entire idea of Media Archeology is that when one investigates the historical aspect of the creative media arts, one can not simply look at it from a strict historical (see: linear) time line. Like the flow-chart models shown in class, the history of media is at best cyclical-with new ideas drawing from past creations-and could even be considered hecticly erratic, with new ideas popping seemingly from nowhere out of some kind of collective concious of the creative populace.
My single argument to this line of thinking is that it seems to take away a certain amount of credit to parties involved. For instance, using Media Archeology thinking does Alexander Ghram Bell recieve credit for inventing the telephone? Without linear thinking, one could imagine a million ways the telephone could have been created, or how it can be used now, how it could be improved, or a million other creative ideas completly free of the creator. While I agree that with this mode of historical archiving comes a definate sense of creative freedom for the individual and the creative populace as a whole, I am still somewhat at odds with a non-linear line of thinking.
To respond to Braulio, one would hope that the repetition of ideas would cause them to improve and streamline with each subsequent use, much like practicing a musical instrument or sport. Of course, this isn't always the case (to cite the example of the Volkswagen Beetle; many felt the “New” Beetle was a much less inspired and ultimately tasteless copy of the original. I'm not of this opinion, nor the opposite, but I've heard many voice this opinion), but it is what one would hope would be the case.
Now in response to the quote, it is undeniable that history, as well as media, repeats itself. Ideas and concepts don't simply generate from nothingness, they are built up on the shoulders of what came before them. No one could have thought (and successfully created) the cell phone before Alexander Graham Bell's invention. Sometimes ideas or technologies for conveying media link this way, while others simply die (as is outlined in Bruce Sterling's “The Dead Media Project” ). Not only that, but on another level media is always reusing bits and pieces of thing which came before it. YouTube is a good example of this, but looking back further there is the example of the Wilhelm Scream, a sound byte sampled over and over in hundreds of movies. Each of these movies, then, have a direct connection with the sound clip in the original film (I believe it was set to a man being eaten by an alligator) If we look at history in this way, the branching, webbed map of history as shown in class is much more accurate than the traditional view: a globe as opposed to an atlas.
-Jon Phillips
Ideas are built off of our entire consciousness - which is built from everything we have ever seen, heard and experienced. It is inevitable for a piece of art or a form of media to resemble something before it. It is inevitable for a piece of technology to be built off of something else. Everyone is stating this as a fact - because it is. But most of us are not stating our stance on it. There are extreme ways to think about this. That we cannot escape from this cycle of recreation - we'll never have a original idea. We could also think that we can take this opportunity to refine what we DO have to perfection. It's a bit cynical to think that we NEVER have original ideas. We do have them - they're just hard to notice because we immediately place them into our collective media.
There are more factors than 'invention inspires invention'. Yes, a piece of technology gives the ability for the new line of products to be built - no, without the earlier piece of equipment we wouldn't have the latter... Dr. Martin Cooper invented the cell phone after seeing Captain Kirk use a similar device on Star Trek... Without telegraph, it wouldn't have been possible. Without Stark Trek (that sounds a little weird...), it wouldn't have been inspired.
- Eric Fritz
When you think about anything that comes about today, whether it be media or not, its origins are much deeper. This is basically what Huhtamo's trying to tell us; however without previous knowledge of these origins, much would be lost in a vast sea of dinosaurs and we'd still be passing notes instead of text messaging. Whether it's an Iphone or something from As Seen on TV they're the spawn of thousands of other little creations or ideas. Thinking about these things so linearly just doesn't make sense when all of these creations are flying at us at unbelievable speeds with so many different variations. Of course some fail to "make it" in today's realm. Sterling's idea for THE DEAD MEDIA HANDBOOK is simply brilliant. If we can have a solid understanding of the things that helped paved the way, whether they made it or not, then we may be able to better understand where we're headed. And instead of not having a truly genuine idea, as B. Garcia mentioned previously, We can focus on having better ideas for a truly genuine idea might seem like gibberish in our sea of dinosaurs.
$Eddie Roberts
Basically, everything that happens today happened in some way in the past. Take, for example, the War in Iraq. I don't want to take a side in that, I'm just using it for argument sake. George H.W. Bush tried to take down Saddam Hussein back in the day. And then we have all the people today that think that George W. is just trying to one up his dad and have that to hold above his head. Would America be in Iraq fighting now if it weren't for George H.W. back in the early 90's? Who knows? That same thing applies to media and the arts and entertainment. Would we have iTunes if it weren't for someone first realizing music and then someone else taking that one step further to recording and someone else taking that one step further to so on and so forth? Probably not. Would there be movies and TV shows today if the Greeks or whoever else before them didn't first realize performing arts? Everything that happens today is based in some way, completely obvious or very discreet, on something that happened in the past. Huhtamo is saying that history is part of the present as well as the past and the future and that, I believe, is true. If it weren't for events in the past, the present and future would have turned out in a different way, and we might still be cavemen and cavewomen chasing dinosaurs with sticks and rocks and drawing on walls instead of going to the store to buy meat already cut and ready for you to cook and drawing on canvases.
-Benj Gibicsar
Erkki mentioned a "deja vu" feeling occurring with media archaeology which I can relate to today. In our history ideas are constantly repeated. Car companies are creating updated versions of classic models, home appliance companies are making toaster ovens and washing machines resembling old models from the 50s, and film after film being created today are remakes of older films from the past. It's hard for me to determine whether these are just simple attempts at people trying to create success from society's love of nostalgia or if these people and companies really have just ran out of good, original ideas. Off the top of my head I can think of decent list of remakes like Fun With Dick And Jane, 3:10 To Yuma, The Pink Panther, The Italian Job, Gone In 60 Seconds, The Wicker Man, and King Kong. What Bruce Sterling spoke of even seems to come into play with this since some of these films end up being prime examples for his "Dead Media Project." If the original was successful, why do we need a new one? Obviously it's acceptable for cars and home appliances since it'd be silly to continue using the same model from the 50s just cause it was successful at the time, but I don't see a real reason for creating these new films unless it's simply for the sake of capitalizing on the original in an effort to make big money off of a remake that really isn't that well done. Even worse is the creation of poor remakes when the originals were poor themselves. The remake of the Incredible Hulk from 2003 wasn't as successful in the box office as they were hoping so now only five years later they are releasing the same film but just with a different director and cast. This isn't a sequel or prequel or even a spinoff from the original story of Bruce Banner becoming this green monster. It's the exact same plotline only five years later. Erkki speaks of media archaeology's "role as a mediator... operating between the present and the past (and, arguably, the future)" which is interesting to think about with this example. Will we be able to determine the future of films by looking at the past's failures. If we see a film this weekend that we clearly felt was poor will that mean we should assume the future that ten years from now we're gonna see it again with a new director and cast in a desperate attempt to create an actual good version? That definitely would give me an immediate feeling of "deja vu."
-ryan fox.
The cyclical phenomena, to which Errki refers, can be seen in history itself. It is often said that history repeats itself; this is very similar to the sense of déjà vu which Errki describes, the difference being only the context. However the general idea is the same, the difference between those actual events or technologies of past is that they may be updated or conform to the present standards in reality. While the general consensus may redefine events and ideas this does not necessarily make these ideas and events accurate. Rewriting historical events seems in itself Orwellian in the sense that these events were never meant to be changed. If you’re constantly changing history all you really have is an identity crisis in the present. How can one have an original idea if we are constantly remixing old ones? This trend can be seen in Hollywood remakes of different movies, an idea that makes going to the movies not worth money or time, especially when its something we've already seen.
-Brian Shea
Erkki was talking about how history has a tendence to repeat itself. That new works of media are driven from an older source. That is the point of history, to learn and grow from it. While the idea or product is not one hundred percent like the original, it is similar. Like a better version of the old material. We took what we learned from the old original source and made it better, more modernized, due to better technology and more widespread knowledge of the original work. Also because of less limits, not just in technology but in society morals too.
Jillisa Suprise
Jenkin's essay about the similarities of modern-day Youtube and historical Vaudeville connects "old" and "new" media dimensions. In a larger view of Jenkin's point, it is now common that we witness these old and new events as emergent of one another. The concepts that arise in one form of media hold the same meaning in other forms and therefore fulfill the same purpose to those who receive the messages (both past and present generations).
For example, Jenkins connects Vaudeville with Youtube in the sense that they are both incredibly diverse, they present variety from all corners of the world, they are stand-alone episodes, and are highly individualized for the performer. It is, quoting Huhtamo, "a sense of deja vu" in regards to media archaeology to which earlier acts of media are reincarnated to present new forms that adapt to each audience generation. Media is therefore a hybrid of itself.
On order to appreciate the streamlined, media-hybrid there has to be an understanding of what media meant in the past. This is the primary concern for Sterling in the "Dead Media Manifesto". One cannot produce a hybrid car without understanding the mechanics of a vehicle. Sterling therefore begs any listeners to take the time to discover old media revolutions. After all, old media is what shapes today’s media.
~nacia schreiner group 1, film 115
When Huhtamo speaks of this “sense of déjà vu” she is referring to something that actually takes place among all aspects of human life. With nearly every invention, we have learned to take whatever is presented to us and manipulate it or alter it in some way in order to make it (hopefully!) superior to the previous design. So, Huhatmo is basically saying that every “new” work of media is, in effect, a manipulated version of an older source. Does this mean “original” media is no longer possible? In a sense, I think maybe, but because of this, we have to take a different approach to what we then refer to as “original.” In general, every “new” idea stems from a previous invention or a combination of previous inventions. Media archeology studies these past and present forms of media and shows how “new”’ ideas wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for various medias of the past.
-Amanda Zimmerman
Media can’t “claim an objective status” because media is always changing. Old media is enhanced to create new media, which makes the old the new but still the old just in a newer form. It is like the article by Henry Jenkins, “YouTube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic” YouTube and Vaudeville have many similarities but are in completely different times. Vaudeville was the early 20th Century and YouTube is the 21st Century. Both show the entertainment of personal expression, and spontaneity. These two are proof that the past can disappear and then reappear at a different time. Vaudeville similarities are now appearing on YouTube almost a full Century later.
Jon Phillips made a great point with the Volkswagen comparison. The old Beetle remade to the new and improved Beetle. I think this is a great example that can be made for media as well. There are times when a new and improved version isn’t always better, but there are times and cases when it is. YouTube is a way that people everywhere can see individual performers, unlike having to go to a play or the theater to see entertainers. The improvement to media does keep changing everyday sometimes new things are made, and many times an older form of media is improved to become something new.
Media archaeology enables the use and knowledge from previous filmmakers, their techniques used, and the existence of varying technologies at the time to be studied and overlapped in more modern engagements. This is an important step because when one sets out to create or understand a film he/she can look to the past at what was used or how something was done. If we didn’t look to the past or understand what was used at the time then we are back at square one experimentation. Film is a progressive building off of other people’s work and experience, without that progressive building every film would turn out the very similar. The dead media project I believe is a great idea to help build off of previous experimentation and technologies to help further advance more modern film by using old techniques/technologies. The other example used in the reading was about youtube and how it is basically mirroring old vaudevillian ways. I think this a great way to show that history does repeat just in new forms. The more successful youtube clips had characteristics or techniques derived from old vaudevillian acts. In studying the old and reinventing it in the new more creative and different types of films will be produced thus, enriching the film culture and society as a whole. In order to create a better future, we have to look to the past and learn from it.
My interpretation of Erkki's statement goes like this: Today's new media forms have all relied on some media form from the past. Today's media has evolved from the media from yesterday. Everyday it evolves into a better more applicable form. So there is promise in a bright future. Jenkins mentioned the similar aspects between Vaudeville and Youtube. Even though they are years apart they are in some ways similar. Not only has Vaudeville helped create Youtube but it has also created many other forms of media such as Movies, TV shows, and Plays. Everything is linked to something. Everything in today's world is just and improvement upon something old. For example, from the phonograph to the cell phone. The cell phone is still a way to talk to someone while not physically being face to face with the person they are talking to. The phonograph was the same idea. The cell phone is just an elaborated form of the phonograph. Finding out the history of an invention or the idea behind an invention can lead us in all other directions. We can take that knowledge to make a product better or we can make it into something new. Media Archaeology is looking at the history of media not in a linear way but in a spartic, spontaneous way. Time is linked. We can learn from the past to make a better future. It is right that there are no original ideas but, artists gather ideas and make something new and improved out of them. That way it looks new and sounds original. As an artist this realization can come as a hard blow but, artists should realize they are only to improve on what has already been built and focus on that. Human beings need set standards to rely on or else we wouldn't know what to do. That is why we have laws. We made them up whether they are right or wrong. People don't know whether they are right or wrong. Human beings just needed to bring order to chaos. That way we feel a sense of security which is the single most wanted feeling by any human being. To me, Media Archaeology is finding out why we built this system we live by, but in media terms. Why the TV? Why the movies? Why has it always been this way? And what is next?
-Michael Schafer
The twists and turns of media technology get lost in the trek of time. This past century, and centuries before that, we have used media as a way to announce history, and keep track of history. We have ignored a very obvious topic of the past...media. We have all sorts of misused media, and media that has failed.
In this weeks reading they have mentioned some forms I have never even heard of. I think that is what these writings are talking about. We cannot forget the past in order to move forward in the future. It’s a simple rule of history. We learn so that we do not repeat the same mistakes.
We must re-track our roots. The monsters of media formed in the last century are nearing death. I have already heard people say film is at the end of its life. There are whole universities dedicated to the next step in media. Anytime now the cap is going to explode on the next big invention of media in the 21st century.
These writers are saying our linear view upon media history is so narrow. We only remember the worthy components. However, we do not connect the mistaken freaks of media together. If we looked upon a time line of all media, not just the successes, we would have a jumbled mess of inventions. We must piece these together and understand our history before we make history of our own.
-Tony Lopez
Fundamentally, I believe Huhtamo’s notion is that inevitably past media will be reiterated. When looking at a time line of media, it will not follow a linear format, rather it is an intertwining web that will unavoidably overlap and cross paths. As Huhtamo points out, when viewing different forms of media a sense of déjà vu is often felt. Whether it is a conscious realization or not every time we see some form of new media, it is frequent that previous works inspired some aspects. However, with every renaissance of “old media” each generation adds a unique twist and interpretations constantly change. As Henry Jenkins points out, even though Vaudeville is what some would consider an extinct art form, many elements can be seen today through youtube. If Vaudeville had ceased to exist, past and present forms of media would have been substantially altered. I believe that Friedrich Kittler’s metaphor of “message in a bottle” best describes the relationships between past and present media. Even though some elements may be forgotten or lost, it will eventually re-emerge and influence future generations.
There is always a first for everything, but media, and the way of interacting with information, has many first starts. It isn't rebuilding itself from scratch every time some new media is born, everything is built off of a previous art form, or multiple art forms. Like Huhtamo said, technological experience has deja vu moments throughout media history. When new media is created there are reverberations of old media in them, like ripples in water there is always something connecting new media to its multiple ancestors. And like ripples, media spreads to the masses, combines with or ricochets off of other media, harmonizes or conflicts with others. The internet and YouTube have greatly sped up this process. Remix Culture is a lot like this, artists combining different mediums, styles, eras, feelings, and experiences of media to create a piece of art. But just like the ripples that brought together media technologies, it is those same ripples that spread art and almost more importantly, inspiration to other artists. It is in this way that media experiences are preserved and this technological deja vu of themes and methods of media keep recurring.
~ Toby Staffanson
After reading Erkki's quote, I agree with this sense of deja vu throughout media history. Media archaeology offers us a historical engagement by showing us how present media sources such as film and tv, use past techniques and ideas that were successful to recreate a somewhat new and hopefully successful work of their own. This technique has already been around for decades in the film industry. It seems like every new movie that comes out is either a remake or based on a historical event. I think Erkki's main point is that the media is afraid to get creative because they're afraid of the outcome whereas when they use old ideas they can have a good clue as to what people's reactions might be.
In Henry Jenkins' article about YouTube's relation to Vaudeville, he shows exactly what Huhtamo meant by "transcending historical contexts". YouTube is basically one big Vaudeville act that can be conveyed across the world because of the internet and media archeology.
Huhtamo's view also works perfectly in sync with all history, and should be applied to all history, not just media. It's a good thing that history isn't set in the "realm of infallible truth". We could learn so much and build off our failures in the past.
However, media is the perfect platform on which to convey these ideas. If only Erkki Huhtamo and Bruce Sterling could meet each other and compose the Dead Media Handbook, or anyone for that matter. It would basically encompass everything that anyone would need to know about media and how it got how it is today. I would also think that it would make it so that anyone could improve on an old idea that died out. It may even be the next big step after the internet phases out. Right now that idea is almost laughable as we have just begun to tap the uses of the internet.
Can't forget all of the "dead" internet ideas out there that are now part of media archeology to be improved on... including YouTube when it's forgotten. It's amazing how that cycle never ends.
~Derrick Markowski, Section 3(Forgot that)
Erkki’s quote discusses the “cyclical phenomena” that is inherent in the human condition. Why is it that we see fashion recycled over the decades? Why is it that the same plots and themes resurface in literature time and time again? Why is it that we insist on remaking and re-remaking films? Perhaps it’s comfort. Perhaps it’s the fact that by whichever mode you choose, be it collective consciousness or a library, no one is safe from “history”. Every moment of everyday you are processing information; ads, video, film, books, magazines, buss logos, jingles, etc. As was mentioned before, no one lives in a vacuum. It is interesting as well, what passes for History, with a capital “H”. History is the linear time line that has been established by dead, wealthy, military leaders. Really, history is more like the anecdote about three blind men examining an elephant. One touches the elephants trunk and says, “well and elephant is round and soft.” Another reaches out touching the tail and states, “No, it’s short and prickly.” And the third feels the elephants side and says, “You’re both wrong, an elephant is warm and rough.” Media archeology provides us with the opportunity to re-examine, remix and revive. Through film, television, music and the internet, Media archeology allows us to take all possible routes in history, all possible explanations for the rhetorical Elephant.
In today’s media many different forms have been created or altered to fit in with the world that is changing around us. Erikki Huhtamo is saying how recurring history is repeated, disappears, and then is repeated again to get a specific point out in today’s society. Erikki is also saying that historical writing is being used as an informal discipline as other mediums, as a way of discussing the past. For instance when we watched the gap commercial in last lecture, past history of Audrey Hepburn’s film career was used to create an advertisement to sell a specific pair of skinny jeans. Since she wore them in a movie and created a specific look that some women might want to obtain a clip from one of her movies was used in a present day commercial at that time. She was an icon in the past then disappeared and reappeared in a gap commercial to represent a classy era of our history. That is just one example of past history appearing then disappearing and reappearing and being mixed in a different media. Like stated in the article “The Dead Media Project” by Bruce Sterling “Our culture is experiencing a profound radiation of new species of media.” Old media that has died for instance, vaudeville, has been changed to fit today’s society and YouTube is a main example. So we have turned an old medium, which has now reappeared into a new form to fit the present. There will be many more forms of media being mixed to create new species all we have to do is sit back and see it unfold before our eyes.
-Judith Marker-
Group 1
Theresa Ennis Film 115:
The way people are rephrasing film or media history to media archeology really fits this industry. Since so many things have been done to a lot of old material, that wording is best.
The re-mixing of old footage can be a good thing as well as a bad thing. The good side of re-mixing is that a artist or filmmaker can add his or her touches to pre-existing footage. Giving another perspective on the topic at hand. I done well the person responsible can earn good accreditation.
The problem I have with re-mixing or re-making of things is that it gives me the idea that the people in the entertainment industry are running out of ideas. Granted many topics have been covered but what happened to the idea of being original.
The "cyclical phenomena" Erkki explains reminds me of the reoccurence of trends. Trends in fashion, trends in thought and belief and other historical trends seem to perpetuate (more and less visibly) through time. And as this time goes on, what has happened, or what has been made (in media) stays, giving way for more reference points for history or media to go off of. It can be as simple as recreating a scene from a movie, or a whole movie, and it can be as complicated as using several media sources from differing time periods to put together a documentary. I think documentaries are a great example of media archeology. Taking various things from the past or present, and putting them together to form one solid piece of work is an archealogical dig itself. The cycle continues when one day, someone uses a clip from that documentary in their own film, or even if it's played on television, or a professor plays the film to his or her students and they form ideas as a result of it. General history itself may seem very linear, but the study and writing of history can be cyclical as well. The amount of authors use for a history book is alarming. As time goes on, more authors use more books being published. Media archeaolgy, in my mind, represents a cylce of events and trends that can be shaped by mixing (or re-mixing) it with other forms of media to create "new" media.
Noah Therrien Group 4
Huhtamo describes media archeology as going beyond the limits of historical contexts. Different styles and forms are invented and then reinvented, slightly altered. Huhtamo wants media archeology to study these reoccurances as they are all related. Methods of studying traditional history merely focus on the facts, what happened, who was there and why they did what they did. All media is interrelated in some way or another. As pointed out in class, it is nonlinear. Some blogs have already pointed this out, but I, too, wonder if it's possible to create completely new concepts and styles. Ones not influenced by others. In today's society, the most obvious example of the repititions of artistic styles for a girl would be fashion. The majority of trends today come from something that was popular twenty, thirty, even fifty years ago. So, to study recurring media, you must start from the beginning of a maze, see what leads you to the present and what leads you to dead ends.
Responding to a previous written comment, I would very much agree that it is wrong to think that all inventions are completely new and uninspired. This person mentioned that it “takes away a certain amount of credit to parties involved.” How can one person claim an invention as their own without giving credit where credit is due for the ideas spawned from a previous work of art.
Media archeology is more of a collaboration of work, as we discussed in class. It draws from various times in history, while traditional history is more attributed to one person. Not only does media archeology investigate and explore the past, but it also tries to understand what is happening in the present and possibly where it will head in the future. Consider things today that are reappearing such as trends, movie remakes, songs; although certain aspects of these things have been done, new ideas are being added or changed to these things. Just because things are coming back into play, that doesn’t mean that they are being copied. People are drawing ideas from the past and putting their own twist on things. How many people can say that they came up with an idea completely, 100% out of the blue? Perhaps some things are not so much similar to something in the past that they can be considered copied, yet many things are inspired by another thing. Certain things help you to discover new ideas and ways of thinking. So through all of my rambling, I think that everything in essence is inspired by something else, however not everything is remade or remixed from the past. Some things are copied and slightly changed, in which case that should be accredited, and some things are merely encouraged which is not necessarily a copy.
-Sarah Myszewski Group 3
Huhtamo brings up the interesting point that history and the present are inseparable. The way we react to different media and ideas is based on how we have been conditioned to react thanks to experiences we have had in the past. In this way historical ideas can continually morph into new technology by building on itself. This view is different from just seeing history as static and unchanging; an incident that has occurred and is no longer relevant. Because of this it's not surprising that Huhtamo sites feelings of deja vu and describes the cyclical phenomena of media history. Its hard (arguably impossible) to come up with completely origional ideas; inspiratin must stem from somewhere. This is especially true in the area of media since it is constantly being improved upon and therefore continues to develop.
Patrick Wodzinski (801)
This is all a bit troubling. Media Archaeology as Huhtamo describes it seems like a cluster fuck of recycled media content. And I can't get past the word content when I think about this. The writing is on the wall with the popular cinema of today. The content of sequels and remaking classics, is an obvious hackery of a system that just can't produce. But that's just on the surface, just like most media, music, books, film, etc. the more you look the more quality you will find. It seems like media archaeologists want to see the content; connect the dots, and forget about it until the next time they see a video installation of an old Bozo the Clown episode. It's my romantic view that you can't re-make 8 1/2, and if you try, even with your D.J. Clue soundtrack and your commentary on the turn of the century apathy, rather than a middle aged 1966 Fellini going through a crises, it should thrown out the window and the maker of this media should be condemned and put into shackles in the town square with a 24 hour loop of his post-modern crap for everyone to defecate on. Now that I have said that on content I will move to delivery. Jenkins contends that You tube is a modern vaudeville; "Indivual artists garnering attention with a zeal to be remembered" This I can only agree with but why are applauding these thirty second "entertainment of the weird" artists? ... "artists?" Seriously, I know that caveman paintings are studied in wonderment but thats when humans had the brain development of a raccoon. Now, the cinema is like a shopping mall, you walk through the aisles, and think "hmm, do I want something sweet, something with pep, or no I've got it ... salty!" and more than likely you'll come out feeling like you over paid. You need to dig through piles of records before you find Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue," and piles of books to find Kerouacs "The Subterraneans." But when you find them it's incredible. I will agree in reference to Sterling that yes, LP's are dying in favor of i-pods, and books are dying in favor of, ... well nothing really, people just don't read anymore. But my main crux is that, if we are lauding the transformation of new media, and new media is recycling old shit very, very badly, and some people make the argument that post-modernism, is a critique of apathy, than media is dead already.
In response to what Erkki said, I would first like to talk about what she said in her first paragraph. Essentially she is saying that History is represented in the past as much as the present (and perhaps the future). The same can be said for media archeology. It goes with what Henry Jenkins said about his YouTube experience; that YouTube represents the same for the 21st century as Vaudeville did for the early 20th century. It's basically history repeating itself over again. We can then deal with the future by realizing what's being done in the present because it's happend in the past.
I also agree with what Kreuser said. That older concepts of media are forming in new and different ways. such as his newspaper example. Also, equally important, is entertainment. If you really look back and think, we've come a long way in the past even 5 years, let alone 50-75 years. Like Henry Jenkins said, YouTube is today's Vaudeville. And like Jackie said, Vaudeville, although has died out, has also been reborn THROUGH youtube.
I like what Mr. Sterling says in his article about how people today, although very into the internet, don't really know what the hell they're doing. Not many people read books anymore. When was the last time people checked out a book from the library. And right there, something has changed. Way back, if someone needed to write a report and gain knowledge of any sort, all they could do was check out a book from the library. Now, all people need to is search on google and they get about 50 websitees in a matter of seconds. 50 years ago, libraries got a new book every six months. Now we get a new website every 6 seconds. I'd say that's a pretty big difference.
Huhtamo's contentions about the differences between traditional history and media archaeology are very intriguing, however I feel that Media Archaelogy replacing the traditional as a "history" wouldn't quite cut it. Sure Huhtamo may be right in saying that traditional history belongs to the realm of infallible truth, but I say shouldn't it? I mean if traditional history didn't belong in the "realm of infallible truth" then wouldn't that make it a work of fiction? I mean sure I may not be a religious man, and I may agree with the "infallible truth" thing on a religious aspect however, to say that history can't be, is sort of far-fetched. Personally speaking, I don't want to open a history book, and see a disclaimer saying, "Note to Reader: Some of the events in this book may not be accurate. They in fact may have not ever even happened. So you can disregard everything you may ever learn in this book for it may have never even taken place." I feel Media Archaeology is a great new way of looking at things, however as far as taking it and making it the new way of documenting things it would be sort of improbable.
-David Ebner, Group 3
Huhtamo is talking about how media will always be tied into events from the past along with the present. A lot of the popular media we see is from the present and new things are being on put on uTube everyday. Like how the movie “The Shinning” was put on uTube but being advertised in a totally different way than it was when it first came out. They took a very popular movie from the 80’s and made it look like a new age family comedy. Where would media be without the invention of computers, cameras/photography, and television? Everything that media is made up of today is based on the events from history.
Aja Gray
As Erkki Huhtamo says, "the aim of media archaeology is to explain the sense of deja vu when looking back from the present reactions into the ways in which people have experienced technology in earlier periods." But why this sense of deja vu? Because people are always interested, even sometimes obsessed with the past. Vintage clothes, new cars modeled after "classics", even older music. It is amazing how often you see Led Zeppelin or AC/DC shirts today. It seems vintage sports jerseys are more popular than modern ones. And with this obsession is where the "deja vu" comes from. "History" is all around us and its impossible not to be influenced by it. Nothing is completely original, but this is not a new phenomenon. Some may say computers were a completely original idea, but the earliest computers were actually super powered calculators. Things are improved upon all the time, we live in a "remix" world.
-Joe Simanis (Group 2)
To say that history itself is like the history of media is somewhat incorrect. With history, you can follow a timeline and see how one event led to another and so on all the way to the present day. With media, you really can't just trace the origin of one specific type (film, television, telephone, radio, etc.) from a certain origin. Media develops itself and advances and changes in a sort of spider web. Every kind of media draws from an earlier form or several earlier forms. As Huhtamo says, there most definitely is a cyclical nature to media; things appear over and over again, just in different forms - such is the case with Vaudeville and YouTube. With media archaeology, this odd sense of deja vu can be understood, or at least begin to be understood. When we see how people in the past dealt with new technology, we ourselves can better adapt to new technologies or advances in older technologies that crop up. Also, as others have said, people are very interested in the past and interested in emulating the past. Thus terms such as classic, old school, vintage, retro, etc. are very applicable to our culture. New media (or really anything for that matter) just pops up out of nowhere. It is always based on something that came before it. Even when certain types of media die out, their short existence is still remembered and logged into the "timeline" of media archaeology for later forms to draw upon.
Huhtamo relates media to deja vu that occurs and reoccurs during history. These media’s have started to really take off during the information age. To our generation we are blind to old types of media that have died off yet we know the still living media’s such as youtube, newspaper, magazines, and television. Maybe in fifty or hundred years the media’s will have completely changed and our media’s that we know of might have completely died off. By having new media’s like youtube we have artists building on each others ideas which ultimately creates a never ending cycle. This happens with every idea an artist comes up with. They need something to fuel their ideas and that fuel comes from all different types of media that they’ve seen over the course of their life. Huhtamo suggests that by media archaeology we can study that cycle of media that has happened over the course of history.
-Colin Sytsma
Concerning the relationship between the vaudeville performers and the YouTube "actors", in Youtube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic; something rubbed me the wrong way with that article. I understand that both YouTube and vaudeville performances are short blips of entertainment, but to relate them so closely I think is untrue. Vaudeville performers dedicated their lives to entertainment, doing it solely for financial gain and the hope of becoming famous and performing for Kings or other high society. YouTube, is a far cry, with it's millions of "actors" simply looking for five minutes of fame. YouTube is all about entertaining anyone willing to watch and leaving it at that. An interesting concept however and some the of the aspects of history not dieing, it merely changes, is so true, and is also very prominent in Timothy Druckrey's article Imaginary Futures. Druckrey along with Kittler write about passing down our ideas and views of the technology at hand, so the future generations can transform those ideas into something more geared toward their lifestyles and ideals. Just as Jennifer Kreuser wrote in her blog, Druckrey discusses the "mixtures of new and old technologies." I think that is what last weeks lecture was all about, history and technology changing for each event and generation. So lineage is present but there are significant branches and loops along with the line.
by: Kurt Sensenbrenner
For me, the idea of media archeology seems less like the history of technology and more like a social history of humanity. We, as a people, haven't really changed much when looking at general world history. The one way we have evolved is in the ways in which we communicate with one another, whether that be with that be by post, phone, computer, radio, theatre, film. All these forms of media are used to communicate, and by studying the history of these forms of media, and others, does one get a sense of where society stands, where its been, and where it may go.
Dave Lewandowski (115 group2)
I completly agree with what Erkki was saying in the quote. Right off the bat, it opens with Erkki saying "History belongs to the present as much as it belongs to the past." This statement really sums up what both traditional history and media archaeology are trying to do. They are trying to keep the past alive either through writing or media like Youtube, Metacafe, or any other kind of media. Next, Erkki goes on to say that "historical writing is emerging as a conversational discipline, as a way of negotiating with the past." Then in the next paragraph, he goes on to say "the aim of media archaeology is to explain the sense of deja vu when looking back from the present reactions into the ways in which people have experienced technology in earlier periods." I believe he is trying to say that historical riting can only do so much when looking back at the past. The only things you have to look at are words on a piece of paper but for media archaeology, you have peice of history which cannot be falseified.
I believe that Huhtamo was correct in his proposition that studying media archaeology can show us certain phenomena that have been repeated. The invention of a new technology does not mean old inventions are extinct. We can see a cycle in history of new inventions that better the way people communicate with each other. I do not know what people in the future will think of YouTube. Maybe there will be some medium that reminds future people of YouTube; just as YouTube reminds us of Vaudeville according to Henry Jenkins. Bruce Sterling talked about dead media forms and it makes me wonder, how much of our technology and media will survive 10 years? 100 years?
Huhtamo is proposing that that history is a “meaning processor” operating between the present and the past, and she also proposes that media archaeology is a way of studying cyclical phenomena which disappears and reappears over and over in media history. I agree with what she proposes because history stays in the past but it also can be useful to the present and the future. Along with that, there are many things from the present that resemble the past. According to Henry Jenkins, one of those resemblances is that YouTube represents the 21st century in the way that Vaudeville represented the 20th century.
Huhtamo is essentially trying to show us how important media archaeology is as a tool to look back at technology in earlier periods and distinguish how that technology turned into the technology that we have in the present. I agree with her that the best way to do this is by studying the ways media has developed from the past to the present, and by studying it this way we can get a glimpse of what technology will be like in the future.
Huhtamo’s quote is simply stating that in regards to media archeology, history is non-linear. There are things in the past that reappear in the future and for good reason. Artists of all media have certain influences that they have molded into their own form. And with these artists, come new ones that are influenced from the second generation artist, and ultimately are influenced by the original artist. The catch is that there really is not original artist, everyone is influenced one way or another and can be rooted back to ancient times. The ancient Aztecs mapped out a calendar that was far more advanced than our own, and in that calendar that laid out epochs, ones that reoccur and end with the same demise. They believed that every epoch had a certain path and reason and that these epochs would repeat every couple hundred years. These similar epochs held the same history from the one prior. Whether taken literally or not, I believe that the past repeats itself for good reason. As Tony Lopez said in an earlier post “We cannot forget the past in order to move forward in the future. It’s a simple rule of history.” I feel this is a solid and truthful statement that defines Huhtamo's feelings.
As has been discussed of the Huhtamo quote and the articles, all things in media (and all things in general) are inevitably cyclical in nature. Huhtamo talks about Media Archaeology vs. Media History, by seemingly comparing the word history with the word archaeology. It is implied not only in the quote, but also throughout the articles, that history implies a linear quality, while the practice of media archaeology is more open to explore the cyclical nature of media and technologies. For the most part, the articles we read enforced and encouraged this idea. But, there was one idea (or perhaps one word) that seemed contradictory. In "The Dead Media Manifesto" by Bruce Sterling the word "dead" does not seem appropriate. While the article does address that these "dead" technologies have influence on other "living" technologies, it seems that within a culture (media archaeologists) which chooses its words very wisely (consider the history vs. archaeology debate) to talk about "dead" media is to talk in a very linear manner. In his own article Sterling writes "Radio didn't kill newspapers, TV didn't kill radio or movies, video and cable didn't kill broadcast network TV; they just all jostled around seeking a more perfect app." Right in his article about "dead" media, he says that it is not possible for media to die (or kill other media for that matter). To get to a conclusion, while I thought that Sterling's article was insightful and overall coherent, I was surprised by his use of the word "dead'. With in the other articles, and the quote by Huhtamo, the authors were very careful to choose their words wisely. All of the authors (including Sterling) are persistent in emphasizing that media and technologies are cyclical and that each effects the next. So, in a media archaeology context, it seems to me that one can not talk about things as dead, because in one way or another all things are still living.
-Kristen Gibb
Huhtamo starts out by saying "History belongs as much to the present as it does to the past." This basically means to me that without our knowledge of the past in the present we would not be able to reach new levels of development in the future. Whats great about film is that it does not have to work in a traditional timeline form because we can go back to an older film and remix it to new audio, or edit the piece in a new form. What you can do with film is also take old methods of production and make a piece in the present allowing for the method to still exist. Media archaeology is a cyclical phenomenon because some trends have a tendency to appear, disappear, and than reappear again. Its the study of past reactions to a certain method or concept, and than also comparing that with our present views. I think that is an interesting way of viewing past work because you are able to view with your own knowledge of how the people of the time felt about their technology and also how their society felt about different topics such as space, people, and places. Than you think of how we view these different topics today and the contrast between our views.
Without sounding too cliché, its evident to see that history clearly repeats itself. Henry Jenkins' article is a fine example of this. The intriguing characteristics of an early vaudevillian performance can be mirrored closely by those of sights like You Tube or Ebaum's World. While techniques from earlier films might appear again over time, as if reincarnated to improve the media world, conceptions about film experimentation are always developing, raising new innovations and progressing the modernism of the film culture. Remixes and remakes are simple examples of media archaeology in a way. The 2005 movie King Kong is a descent example of a remake that was fairly successful using technology from today to redo with a stylistic spin from the brilliant mind of Peter Jackson. Even right there, in the simplest, most literal terms, the movie was redone and history repeated itself. But can one even compare the 2005 version to the 1933 film? With today's technology and endless possibilities to bring a giant ape to life, it seems as though they could be considered two completely different films. Though history had reoccurred, possibly even on a linear level, we the audience, are able to sit down and watch the Peter Jackson version, enjoying every new moment like it was the first King Kong movie ever made.
-Tyler Hudson
I'm not sure I agree with history being a mediator between past, present, and future. This indicates that all history is correct, which it isn't. We can't rely on the past to direct the present. The present and the future are all about change. Yes, some technology today looks like a variation of something in the past. But that doesn't mean it isn't new. And yes, sometimes technology takes a step backward before a step forward. But this step may be necessary for understanding, the same way we look at media archaeology: we look into the past with the invention of the telephone, not just BAM! telephone and how it evolved from there. Media archaeology can be used to study the cyclical sense of history, because history does repeat itself. But each repeat is a new variation.
When I read Erkki's quote, my attention is drawn to the last line of the first
paragraph. To say that religion and the consititution are "infallible truths",
(among others), I have to rethink my definition of history all together.
Obviously you wouldn't dispute many things happening- whether you were there or
not- when they are delivered as fact in your American history class sophomore
year. I think, though, that when media history is considered, there are a lot
of things that don't need to be delivered to you. That, as Erkki hints, there
is a lack of chronological media order. That based on our preferences and
experiences in terms of media, we've taken some things from history, and left
many behind. The Dead Media Project would reflect those things left behind
from the past generations, as those after us could do the same. I think it has
a great intention.
Jenkins brings up YouTube as history repeating itself, suggesting it's like a
modern vaudeville. He's dead on in saying that YouTube brings you an array of
performance, spontaneous and spread-out. I think that, like YouTube,
vaudeville's stars were everyday people (for the most part) with some goofy gag
or talent. Overall Errki's idea is one that I would agree with, because it's true, media history does repeat itself and covers new ground at the same time. The "transcendence" of media history over undisputable history exists in it's repetition and resurrection of old ideas combined with new technology.
AshLeigh Brown- group 2
The crux of Erkki Huhtamo theory of media archeology is the idea that media can be studied as a recurring cyclical phenomenon. I would argue that all of history itself can be studied in such a manner. Things are born then die and reborn in a new and improved form. Media has been progressing forward since cavemen have been drawing on their walls. A perfect example of this is demonstrated by Henry Jenkins in his comparison of Vaudeville and You-Tube. I feel another example of this would be Shakespearean theater and the feature film of today. The feature film of present obviously draws heavily from the dramatic and structural aspects of theater. However, theater is still a strong and very much alive media today. This compares to Vaudeville which for the most part is no longer practiced. Why one media dies and another lives is beyond me, however the connection between vaudeville, theater, film and You-tube is undeniable and shows how one form of media effects all that succeed it.
Erkki Huhtamo believes that media archeology can explain the déjà vu or sense of familiarity we feel when we see earlier forms of media. For example, when we see a painting by one of the old masters, we recognize the certain traits such as; composition, use of color, ect.., from the painting that have passed into the media that we are familiar with today. I believe that if you were to show a man from medieval times a You-tube video, aside from his amazement he would be able to recognize its similarities with a court jesters performance. The one question I have is with all this media being reborn and reborn again, at some point it had to be just born, for the first time. What was the original media that all others are based on.
Matt Smaglik
The two important messages that I got from Erkki Huhtamo’s quote; is that the history of all media is important, and that as human beings, it’s our responsibility to preserve these artifacts in order to learn from them. In Bruce Sterling’s article, “The Dead Media Project: A Modest Proposal and a Public Appeal”, he mentions that technology is constantly changing and how several books on things(I.E, the Internet, multimedia, etc) that are happening now but none of yesterday’s technologies. He argues that it’s important to get as much information on the dead media that failed, (I.e., the phenakistoscope) to inform more people then the few who do know.
I had several questions that I believe Erkki Huhtamo answers in her quote. By looking at how a person responses to Tivo, we can better understand how people reacted to the VCR or DVD when they were first introduced. New things are often taken from an older model and changed in someway to fit the general audiences’ ideas or help change them. If one were to visit Youtube, for example, they could see The Shinning trailer after someone cut it to seem like a feel good family film, instead of the horror film that it is. People seeing the trailer, would then have a different take on the old film that has been arranged because of new technology.
One thing to point out is that when the new technology comes out, (for example, films replacing vaudeville); many are then forced to adapt or die off. (A great example of this is when the television came out and the film companies had to come up with new ways to get people to go to the movie theatres.)
What Erkki Huhtamo is asking is that people become more engaged with their past and to not just think about just the technologies of now. Yes, history does repeat itself all the time, however, its important to realize that sometimes history doesn’t repeat and we’re left with a question mark. With media archeology, you’re taking the old technology, connecting with people from years before, putting yourself in their place AND also preserving history so future generations can enjoy it.
Veronica Mosley Section 04
If Huhtamo’s contention of history as dialogue between past and present is the same criteria we see in media archaeology, where we have this cyclical phenomena occurring throughout media’s own history, then Jenkin’s comparison of vaudeville and YouTube fits these two ideas perfectly. Just as performers in the early 20th century were praised for their individualistic talents and creativity, such are the qualities that are looked for today in your typical YouTuber. It’s as if YouTube is channeling this century-old performance art.
Huhtamo also states that history can also tell us something about the future and I think media archaeology is a useful tool for putting media’s history in this future context. By examining the media’s past/present relationship, we can understand how things like YouTube or The Grey Album come to be. Personally, I think YouTube is somewhat of a step backwards for the evolution of the spectator. While it is technologically unique and can at times be entertaining, it is mostly repetitive and finds its audience in those who like illogical material and quick sound bites. (TV) This is why vaudeville was overshadowed and eventually dominated by narrative form. If anything, YouTube is a testament to the low point at which narrative cinema finds it self today and audiences are trying to reconnect to a type of entertainment not-so-long forgotten.
-Brian Dunigan (Group 1)
From what I can interpret, I will have to follow Huhtamo's statements with the utmost belief. As far as opinions go, the possibilities can stretch far without boundary, but in this example I agree with Huhtamo in that "cyclical phenomena" reappear from time to time throughout the media. Fine examples of this can be seen in the concepts, styles, and genres that gradually revive and depart through given eras of the past and present, according to, and controlled, by the whims of the masses. Such as fads and fashion become "in" and "out," so does the entertainment industry fall into periods of what the public finds exceptional or long past its due point. With this, we can see that very few arising ideas are alone with originality. With the resurrection of previous developments, we find ourselves in an inevitable loop of evlolving methods that summmon a feeling of, as Huhtamo puts it, "deja vu." Overall, everything falls into the interpretation, whether it is society's unpredictable likings, or a statement to be dissected.
-Matthew Evan Balz
Huhtamo explains how history in media is not a timeline because of the way history tends to repeat itself. We can look at media and its always evolving form, but we can also see certain things that were in the past. Today we have YouTube, viewer submitted commercial contests, and television shows and movies on iPods. Amazingly we can see history through all of these forms of media. The example with the Citizen Kane remix was a prime example of history through YouTube. On a broader view of how history of media tends to repeat itself, we can see old movies being updated and redone to another artists point of view. I would like to aknowledge Ryan's example of the updated version of Hulk which was released in 2003 and based on the Marvel comic. In 2008, The Incredible Hulk, the remake of he 2003 version will feature a whole new cast under a different director. This brings up another crucial point. History is an ever-growing period of time where as the present is now. That's it. History repeats itself all the time because History can be very recent in some cases. Because media evolves throughout history, media is a collaboration of history. Now that we are in an age in that anyone and everyone can be filmmakers, media archaeology will be more prominent. Huhtamo puts what we all witness in the media thorugh time into words to describe such an imporant topic.
Jake Thorn - Group 4
I feel that Erkki Huhtamo's belief that the repetition of history, art and their concepts on a non-linear path reflects the idea that great thinkers from all eras felt the same emotions and understanding of certain situations and events at their present time. This concept does not demote the value or creativity of ideas from philosophers and artists but merely proves existence of a connection between present humans and those that lived long ago. It shows that individuals from all times have been absorbing thought process from the many cultural and natural aspects of the world. The fact that thousands of poets from many periods have described a sunset in a similar manner does not mean that they were all copying their predecessors but that they were all feeling the a same or similar emotion when they looked at one. Erkki Huhtamo's theory comforts me because it helps me to recognize the connection between myself and those who come before me and those who follow.
Erkki is saying that history cannont just stay in the past, it will be referenced and repeated over and over again in the present. When he says it is like deja vu he is refering to how we see things over again. Either it is an actual story being told again or movie being remade, or it is just the way things are done. Like in the "Youtube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic" article Jenkins talks about how he finds Youtube to be very similar to vaudeville, and it being a repeat of the media culture happening 100 years ago. This is because they have many similar aspects, youtube has short random videos from all over that are made from unknown people. Vaudeville had many small acts by different people and no plot developement. This is just one example of how things repeat themselves.
-Lauren Zirbes
Huhtamo explains that history belongs to the present as much as it belongs to the past. Inevitably everything builds off of each other and influences the actions of the present and arguably the future. Technology has a way of reappearing from the past into present day society. Basically, all media has this sense of progression and feeds off of past works. An artist has a head full of images and ideas from past experiences and this is represented in their work. It’s impossible for an artist to live in a box for eternity and not be influenced by media. So all things created have been influenced by things created in the past. Media Archeology offers a historical look at how present media sources are influenced by ideas of the past to create new work of their own. I believe the main point of Huhtamo’s quote is that all media is inevitably a cycle of old work influencing present day media.
-Tyler Briese
My response to Huhtamo’s contentions about the differences between traditional history and the type of historical engagement offered by media archaeology is that it is in some sense a study of the human psyche. If you look at Jackie Bentley’s blog response, you see the natural reaction to the phenomenon of reoccurring art themes (as apposed to linear movement). What I am suggesting is maybe the artists don’t always borrow from other people’s art, but instead an artist may be reaching deep down inside and pulling out a similar art as a person from the past. This may be an extreme and complex option, but not one to throw aside.
A few examples may be in order to make more sense of this concept. Lets take the “Youtube and the Vaudeville Aesthetic” article from our reading. The author mentions his comparisons of these two historically separate art Medias and makes a connection. Do you think that the Youtubers hang out and study vaudeville on their spare time? Yet there are similarities between the two.
Let’s look at an archeological example from our human ancestors. The best examples I can come up with is the use of dragons in ancient art. Dragon artwork showed up in many cultures that had no connections to each other. Although, these are very different images, they represent a very similar looking beast as far as appearance. There is no way these cultured could have stolen these images from each other as far as I understand.
Maybe art isn’t cyclical in the way that Jake B., tyler, or a few other bloggers are leaving us to believe. I hate to think that we are just going around in circles steeling each others work. Instead I would hope there is a pattern due to a human element of connection and the mind.
We can look at SarahM mentions in her response with interest. “How many people can say that they came up with an idea completely, 100% out of the blue(from Blog)? This is valid as well as the other blogs I have mentioned. It is hard to imagine people creating the same ideas when media is so plentiful in our age. From another perspective, I hope there is more to it. Maybe we can say that all art is inside ourselves and it takes an artist to pull that out from deep down.
The presence of the Vintage clothing store (once called second hand or thrift) seems to echo in fashion what Erkki states of media. Clothes dug out of a baby boomer’s closet and taken to Goodwill or one of the many hipster run boutiques seems to be a part of the cyclical histories we all participate in. Jenkins’ correlation of vaudeville’s actors, singers, performance artists and the Youtube artists of today seems to only highlight the action/reaction patterns of our culture and human nature. The clothes of the past were ridiculous and flamboyant, but we flock to them in reaction to the equally ridiculous fashions popularized by the Gap and Abercrombie. Bruce Sterling offers that few media die once established in the culture, the role a particular medium will play in the culture only shifts.
Traditional views of history acknowledge the existence of different fashions and art media but takes the attitude that their roles are subjective. Erkki on the other hand cares little for the role of a particular media but rather its relationship to other media happening in the contemporary world. While I go shopping for paisley button downs and flare-legged polyester pants, I wear them with irony and will often pair those purchases with canvas parachute pants or the sun-glasses found in a modern day mall. In the same way YouTube embraces the eclectic and perhaps nonsense aesthetics of vaudeville to create a media platform that is exciting, ironic and thoroughly post-modern.
Timothy W. Sienko
In response to Huhtamo's contentions, it appears [from what we have read thus far] that his idea of media archaelogy being a way of studying the recurring cyclical phenomena that appear, reappear, and disappear in media history is extremely plausible. Looking back at Henry Jenkins, we see that in contemporary media we have [as discussed in class] turned to a major remixing culture. We are reviving things that may never have received any media exposure by intermingling the classic past with the "hip" present. This goes further to give reason as to why Bruce Sterling's idea that there should indeed be a "Dead Media Manifesto" should become enacted. As we move forward and even now, we find much of the wit being lost in such remixes because people simply are not informed. If a Dead Media Manifesto were to be created we would not only have knowledge of what did not work, but also a better understanding of what is working and why. Thus, we would begin to understand the media around us instead of merely accepting it. Nowadays with so many people making themselves famous and so many intellects sticking to the web as their primary resource for ranting, it seems all too proper for everyone to have the knowledge of why certain remixes are so witty or intense and why others are substanceless. The same is with film, not just Youtube.
Troy Key
Huhmtamo’s notion is that the past media will be reiterated. The time line of film will not follow a linear form, but become an interconnecting web. All media will overlap or cross paths somewhere in the web. Huhtamo points out that when viewing different forms of media, a sense of déjà vu s felt. It is frequent and obvious that pervious media inspired some aspects. There are renaissances of “old media” and each generation adds its own change. Henry Jenkins said that even though vaudeville has ceased to exist, many elements could be seen today on youtube. If Vaudeville didn’t exist then media would be greatly altered. Some media/film tricks or elements may be gone, it will repeat it self and surface in the future.
According to the quote by Erkki, media archeology is mainly studied for the purpose of rediscovering the medias of the past in the modern medias and to more fully understand the origins of such past media concepts. I wasn’t completely sure of what media archeology could ever really be used for, but upon reading this quote and the other readings, it seems much more apparent and can actually have much more merit then I originally had believed. Clearly with the modern media of today there had to be influence from of the medias of the past. As shown by the first reading comparing the styles of YouTube and vaudeville, the medias of the past are reflected obviously in those of the present time. The vaudeville notion that a performer's audience could easily stray its attention away from the performer if they are not completely entertained at every wake able moment throughout the show. The performers condensed their best material into their acts, spanning no longer than twenty minutes at time to keep the attention of the audience. The same concept applies to the audiences of YouTube. YouTube video creators generally create short, entertaining video clips that engage the internet audience for a just long enough time as their attention spans are capable of. So to come full circle, Erkki hit the nail right on the head with his quote. It is quite apparent the influences of past media, in the prim example of YouTube especially, in the modern media we know and love.
Huhtamo has the right idea. Our sense of who we are as a planetary population (as well as the sub-sects of nations, states, cities, etc.) entirely depends on the various media we see or interact with. However, all of this media is man-made and therefore prone to error and bias, intentional or unintentional. Therefore, it is certainly beneficiary for media to be bombarded from all angles of thought and evolve in every possible way. This acts as a safeguard in case the "official" history media does not provide all the answers. If aparticular medium takes its cues from the past but can work efficiently because of modern technology (which has its own evolution) how can we expect to learn about it in a traditional chronological way? We have to observe all the connections forward and backward through time. Timothy Druckery in his essay "Imaginary Futures" talks about a kind of space of time for a media concept to bounce around in, instead of a mechanical progression of ideas. "The history of media calls for the investigation of the scenes in which development might or might fail to emerge, in which determinism is undermined by probability, or in which possibility outdistances expectation." It is this incubation period we must study, and it is very interesting because it almost asks us to study the human mode of thought, individual and collective.
Huhtamo has the right idea. Our sense of who we are as a planetary population (as well as the sub-sects of nations, states, cities, etc.) entirely depends on the various media we see or interact with. However, all of this media is man-made and therefore prone to error and bias, intentional or unintentional. Therefore, it is certainly beneficiary for media to be bombarded from all angles of thought and evolve in every possible way. This acts as a safeguard in case the "official" history media does not provide all the answers. If aparticular medium takes its cues from the past but can work efficiently because of modern technology (which has its own evolution) how can we expect to learn about it in a traditional chronological way? We have to observe all the connections forward and backward through time. Timothy Druckery in his essay "Imaginary Futures" talks about a kind of space of time for a media concept to bounce around in, instead of a mechanical progression of ideas. "The history of media calls for the investigation of the scenes in which development might or might fail to emerge, in which determinism is undermined by probability, or in which possibility outdistances expectation." It is this incubation period we must study, and it is very interesting because it almost asks us to study the human mode of thought, individual and collective.
Roger Bergeron
"I think Erkki's main point is that the media is afraid to get creative because they're afraid of the outcome whereas when they use old ideas they can have a good clue as to what people's reactions might be." - Max Larsen
I disagree with you Max. Its not that new age film makers are afraid of being creative, many are very much so. It's just that the "old ideas" are so solid in their presentation that you want to fallow them. Not necessarily like a rule book because you'd have one boring ass movie if you did. So it's good to "copy" the old rules, and even better to break 'em, because that's where the creativity kicks in. I don't think Huhtamo is shunning the current media at all. He's simply quoting that Media Archaeology is a way of understanding why certain forms of media keep appearing and reappearing. I love what Jackie Bentley says… because it’s not like filmmakers, such as Tarantino and well everyone, are stealing ideas from older filmmakers they’re just inspired by films. Just like every artist is inspired by something. Every person is inspired by something or someone. I’m curious as to who has had a lot of their work copied and what details of it were copied, cause it’s probably good as hell!
In the quote by Erkki Huhtamo, “I propose a way of studying such recurring cyclical phenomena which (re)appear and disappear and reappear over and over again in media history.” This is Media Archeology; from what is being said in this quote it sounds like Erkki Huhtamo is looking for a way to recover unedited history through media. There is no question that all old media affects the new media, and I say this because there isn’t an instance when one artist doesn’t copy, borrow, or sometimes even out right steal from another. But then again if technical advances in filmmaking weren’t learned, stolen, borrowed, or what ever else.
Then how would better ways of filmmaking have come along. If linear, “Narrative Cinema” (1906-1917) hadn’t been developed from “The Cinema of Attractions” (1895-1906), which where film shorts in black in white of cats boxing, or a body builder flexing, and so on. Then Narrative Cinema may not have derived from its predecessor of viewing boxes that featured these film shorts at carnivals, state fairs, board walks, and so on. It’s like Jackie Bentley post in her comment, “In other words, all old media affects the new. It's like what any artist will tell you, no artist creates in a vacuum. Essentially, all artists rely on other artists for ideas.” This isn’t a bad thing for artists to rely on other artists for ideas. It is how we can grow and learn to develop our own ideas and then the cycle continues. Is this in part of what Huhtamo was talking about a circular phenomenon in which students learn from the experienced who encourages and influences us to make our stories and thus the circle is repeated again and again and again.
Matt Gonia
I would like to comment on the whole dead media fiasco. I feel that it is a good idea to create this dead media archive. People that are trying to create new forms of media or technology should always have a place to go back and look at the pioneers who made it possible for them to create something special. They can also improve on the old media. Someone stepping up to does this will have to do a lot of research to create this handbook that Sterling wants some fan of all sorts of media to create. You really can’t do anything about those past media’s they have past and gone. One recent dead media is VHS, which has been killed by DVD. DVD presents digital quality in the image and you don’t have to worry about the DVD player eating the disc like the VCR ate the VHS when there was a problem. I feel that the history does belong to the present, because the present decides what is now and what will be to come. All the media’s should be remembered so that the people of the future can take from the past and correct and expand on what we have done, even fixing the flaws.
-Randal Jackson-
The cyclical nature of history is something that has been discussed by minds of nearly every field. To paraphrase, if you forget the past, you are doomed to repeat it. Also, history is written by the victor. Engaging with history, recalling it, enables us as artists and media archaeologists to follow the paths that others have trod before us but also to create new meanings and associations between prior ideas and events. To come up with a new idea is to accept the ideas of the past and incorporate them into your world view, understanding that though it may have been thought before, each person is capable of a bold new re-imagining.
Post a Comment