Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin explain the concepts of transparency, immediacy, hypermediacy, and remediation in their book Remediation: Understanding New Media. When discussing the “double logic of remediation,” they reveal that “[o]ur culture
Public Domain
wants both to multiply its media and to erase all traces of mediation: ideally, it wants to erase its media in the very act of multiplying them” (5). The authors use the examples of how live documentaries work to make the audience feel like they are there in the midst of the action, yet in order to jump into the action, that same audience is dependent upon the media. So at the same time we want to ignore the medium, we are dependent upon it.
Immediacy is not new; the authors showcase various media which attempt to “ignor[e] or den[y] the presence of the medium and the act of mediation” (11) from virtual reality (24) to the painter who tries to “erase his brush strokes” (25) so that the viewer can see THROUGH the medium.
Hypermedia is not new either; “integration of text and image” (12) has been around for centuries as is evidenced by the elaborately decorated medieval manuscripts (13) or a Coney Island postcard from the early twentieth-century which superimposes photographs inside the letters that spell out the key location (14). These authors have even attempted to create a “hyplerlinked” textbook by providing page references to concepts which appear in multiple locations of the book.
Thus, the “double logic” describes alter egos; while immediacy desires to remain transparent, hypermediacy desires to enhance its “viewability.” In order for either to succeed, they must rely on remediation, or repurposing an older medium into a newer form.
1 Comment
I read through all of the links in your discussion of Remediation and I definitely feel like I have a grasp of the key concepts–thank you! I can definitely see the concept of immediacy played out in today’s Reality TV and documentary programming. Every now and then I remind myself that there’s a whole camera crew at work, just feet away from the action with which I’m “intimately” involved and there’s an instant disconnect. I find it interesting that the definition of remediation here involves media that replaces or “absorbs” its predecessor. Since my thought process instantly goes to the traditional idea of remediation “making correct” an errant thought process, I find myself wondering if there’s any evaluation intended in the term? Do the authors mean to imply that the old media has been “corrected?” Although that seems counterintuitive as traditional remediation usually involves going back to the basics, I still find myself wondering if there’s any of the “double logic” at work in the term.