Engaging the Scholarly Field
The concept of remediation has spread outside the field of New Media to other areas of study. One such arena involves
“Michelangelo” Public Domain on Pixabay
the physical senses. In an introductory article for a special issue of the journal The Senses and Society that focuses on touch, Mark Paterson applies the principles of remediation and quotes Bolter and Grusin’s definition of remediation as “the formal logic by which new media technologies refashion prior media forms” (qtd. in Paterson 131) . In connecting remediation to the sense of touch, he discusses how various tactile measures are often hypermediated though the touch of a screen or joystick or bodysuit, yet we are often unaware of this hypermediation. He pulls from Aristotle’s claim that “flesh is the medium, rather than the organ, of touch” (qtd. in Paterson 130) and connects both the immediacy of being able to touch something with the transparency that we often exhibit by not being mindful of the fact that we are using the sense of touch. This concept of awareness coincides with mindfulness studies which encourages subjects to stop and think of the medium of their bodies, even the particular media of specific organs (like the lungs while breathing or the ears while listening or the heart while beating).
Paterson, Mark. “Introduction: Re-mediating Touch.” Senses and Society 4.2 (July 2009): 129-140. Academic OneFile. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.
Another field which draws from Bolter and Grusin’s concepts of remediation is that of anthropology. In the introductory article for a special issue of Social Anthropology, Patrick Eisenlohr begins with the basics by asking the overall question “What is a medium?” His research led him to the German researchers Stefan Münker and Alexander Roesler who identified these various descriptions of media from some well-known theorists: “a chair, a wheel, a mirror (McLuhan); a school class, a soccer ball, a waiting room (Flusser); the electoral system, a general strike, the street (Baudrillard); a horse, the dromedary, the elephant (Virilio); money, power and influence (Parsons); art, belief and love (Luhmann)” (1). Based on such a broad range of criteria, anything old that is revised can be considered a medium remediated. Eisenlohr, of course, expresses his interest in how society’s use of media is shaping (or reshaping) society and cultures. He also explores briefly the paradox of “[m]ore and more people project[ing] their wishes for doing away with a mediating ‘in-between’, and for more ‘immediate’ connections on ever more complex technical media apparatuses” (2-3). Such is the paradox which Bolter and Grusin explain in their book.
Eisenlohr, Patrick. “Introduction: What is a Medium? Theologies, Technologies and Aspirations.” Social Anthropology 19.1 (2009): 1-5. Wiley Online Library. Web. 13 Oct. 2014.
Bolter and Grusin’s concepts are both elaborated on and contested in Susan H. Delagrange’s Technologies of Wonder: Rhetorical Practice in a Digital World. One of her arguments is that since THE “English Department” (generally) finds itself at the crossroads between the hypermediacy of new media and the immediacy of the formal MLA-styled esssay, this current remediation process is a good time for asking the hard questions regarding “the way things are” (31). She proposes instead that we work to incorporate the visual to invoke within our students a sense of wonder that encourages them to research “why” and “if” about the world around them (40-42). Delagrange argues against Bolter and Grusin when they associate “appearance and reality” with “hypermediacy and immediacy” (27). Not only does she address the concept of mediated presentations manipulating our perceptions of reality (chapter 3), she also warns against the power struggle regarding what is true or real.” Her solution is to encourage hypermediacy which “resist[s] a unified perspective, offering a multiplicity of points of view on every screen” (27). She later elaborates on how identifying hypermediacy helps us become aware of how “changing the medium changes the message” (32).
Delagrange, Sussan H. Technologies of Wonder: Rhetorical Practice in a Digital World. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital P, 2011. ccdigitalpress.org/wonder/ Web. 12 Oct. 2014.
Engaging with Key Concepts from 2 Previous Works:
New Media: The Key Concepts (Gane and Beer 2008) and Lingua Fracta (Brooke 2009)
Network: The human/machine interaction was the main focus of networks in this book, though I don’t recall a formal discussion of networks in their book.
Information: The medium can change the message, and acknowledging and researching the remediation of content helps us realize that we should be asking these types of questions.
Interface: in the discussion of the virtual self, Bolter and Grusin discuss how we can explore life outside our own bodies by creating our “virtual self” using the interface of virtual reality and other computer games. They say, “Virtual reality offers a remediated definition of the self as a new kind of camera” which allows a person to “manipulate her own perspective” (248). Computer programers can also create interface that can be adjusted by the user.
Archive: With information so easily available on the web and with “ubiquitous computing” (213), most “archives” (term used loosely) are accessible to most users. While plagiarism may increase, the fact that information has been hypermediated for us has overall been a positive aspect of the digital age.
Interactivity: Many different discussions regarding interactivity can be found in this book. It shows up in areas of hypermediacy (where the media is “front and center”) for example in the advertisements of news web pages in addition to areas of immediacy (where the media try to disappear) such as in video games and virtual reality examples.
Simulation: The discussions of virtual reality like a flight simulator or programs to encourage empathy in children (246) may have an impact on how someone views reality, which, according to Gane and Beer is no longer “understood to be a universal phenomenon . . . but rather is treated as a historically specific construct” (105). Granted, we want pilots to practice on flight simulators before practicing in real life and we do want children to learn how to empathize with others, even if those others are dinosaurs. But we have to keep clear boundaries between the real and the hyperreal.
Ecology: The ecology of code would be the various styles and frames of media which we interact with. Other than identifying media’s desires, I can’t think of how they discussed the ecology of practice. The ecology of culture includes any society which uses technical interfaces (and even some non-technical interfaces when the model of remediation is applied to a new form of providing meaning).
Proairesis: Do Bolter and Grusin “rhetorically construct something as a means of opening up possibilities instead of shutting them down” (Rodrigo, class notes, 30 Sept. 2014)? Not much of their discussion focused on invention itself, but they did encourage their audience to be aware of both attempts at immediacy and hypermediacy in the media around them to better find the message in the medium.
Pattern: Hypermediated web pages often encourage us to break the linear pattern of receiving information. Such pages are often arranged spatially instead of chronologically, unless that page is a time line or something similar.
Perspective: Seeing the media before us as either encouraging immediacy or hypermediacy helps us guard and actively change our perspective regarding the information we are receiving.
Persistence: As we continue to look for media’s desire (toward immediacy or hypermediacy), we’ll be able to identify such more easily.
Performance: When an older media form is remediated, I would consider that an act of performance on the part of the creator.
Leave a comment