Media Theory

(Media Theory class notes - unedited)

Media Theory Week One

Media Studies isn’t defined by a set canon of authors but is an evolving field of study.

• Marshall McLuhan – Known for his unstructured approach, McLuhan’s contributions represent a recent development in media theory.
• Michel Foucault – Described theory as a "toolbox of concepts," adaptable for various applications.

Using theory to address real-world problems highlights the practical and theoretical aspects as closely connected.

Changing Nature of Production
Productive activities have drastically shifted, increasingly relying on abstract frameworks and concepts rather than physical goods. We now live in a knowledge-based, information-driven society, where material production is becoming obsolete in some regions.

Key Concepts in Media Theory
Media theory examines foundational ideas, such as simulacra, where a media-saturated society can lose sight of reality, blurring the line between real and artificial.

• Medialogical Turn – Art has shifted from realism to abstraction, focusing more on the canvas and less on literal representation.
• Centrality of Text – Thinking is intertwined with writing; one doesn’t merely think and then write. Verbal communication has a limited reach, while text can transcend dimensions, though this requires sacrificing immediacy, such as call and response.

Media and Medium
There’s an illusion that we are separate from our tools, but media and mediation are inseparable.

Cybernetics and Information Theory
The model of cybernetics illustrates this interconnectedness:

M -> M1
S ----channel---- (N) ---- R
Goal = Minimize N

The goal is to minimize "N," representing noise or interference. Here, "M1" can differ significantly from "M," emphasizing that communication is inherently mediated.

Medium and Space
The word “medium” originates from Latin, meaning “in between,” and refers to the space that separates and connects. Media theorists often focus more on the apparatus of content delivery than on the content itself, moving towards a “post-human” or “ahuman” world, as exemplified by concepts like the Internet of Things.

Media Theory Week Two: Benjamin

Marxism and Art’s Commodification
In his readings, Walter Benjamin discusses Marxist ideas, such as the superstructure and substructure, and how art has evolved from a ritualistic to a commodified form. Early art was created by craftsmen for ritual; now, it’s defined by aesthetic value rather than ritualistic attachment.

• Loss of the Aura – Benjamin argues that this loss isn’t necessarily negative. Mechanical reproduction detaches art from ritual, allowing for broader accessibility.
• Shift in Art Spaces – The museum, only a few centuries old, exemplifies this shift, where art is displayed more for public viewing than for private reverence.

Distraction vs. Contemplation
Benjamin suggests we’ve moved from an age of contemplation to one of distraction, where experiences are consumed rather than reflected upon. We are surrounded by things that shape us, often without conscious awareness, fostering new habits of passive immersion.

From Auratic Art to Mechanical Reproduction
Benjamin contrasts two periods:

• Age of Auratic Art: Art tied to ritual and unique presence.
• Age of Mechanical Reproduction: Art becomes widely accessible but detached from ritual.

Television
Benjamin notes that television differs from traditional reproduction as it’s primarily a medium of transmission rather than replication.

Post One: Reflections on Benjamin’s Work

In preparation for our next reading, I wanted to share some reflections from our class discussion on Walter Benjamin’s work. This process is a valuable opportunity for all students, and I found the discussion helped clarify several key points.

This reading is a seminal work, and after discussing the historical context of Benjamin’s life—what was transpiring in Europe and what he experienced personally—I gained a more cohesive understanding of its cultural and theoretical importance. Fascist aesthetics, particularly those promoted by German propagandists like Leni Riefenstahl, were pervading and likely shaping the perceived potential of mechanically reproduced art, especially in film.

The discussion highlighted the contrast between the auratic art of an earlier era and the modern era of mechanical reproduction. Initially, I perceived Benjamin’s tone as pessimistic or even technophobic, but the discussion helped me see that my interpretation likely reflected a generalization of writers from this period and subject matter rather than his true intent.

Benjamin appears to reflect thoughtfully on what has been, what is, and what may come, positioning himself with one leg in the era of auratic art and the other in the age of mechanical reproduction. He suggests that mechanical reproduction introduces new habits. My tendency to read pessimism into his language, I realize, may be more of a projection on my part than his intended tone.

Although the work does not delve deeply into specifics, Benjamin hints at the idea that fascism could exploit mechanical reproduction in art to distract the proletariat from real change. By preoccupying people with new forms of expression, fascist regimes could suppress transformative movements.

We didn’t explore Dadaism in class, but I anticipate this concept will resurface as we discuss other thinkers. I also appreciated the professor’s course correction when I suggested that early documentary filmmaking focused on bridging the gap between mechanical reproduction and auratic authenticity. This perspective helped me reframe my understanding of the evolving role of filmmaking.

The reading led me to consider how art can still function as a contemplative medium. If I could ask Benjamin a question today, I’d inquire about his view on nostalgia in the era of mechanical reproduction. Is nostalgia one of the ways commodified distraction can regain a ritualistic, contemplative quality? Through nostalgia, art becomes both immersive and recognizable, creating a shared meaning as others experience the same familiarity. This feedback loop allows concepts to be reborn and recycled.

I don’t mean to suggest that auratic art cannot carry nostalgia, but nostalgia seems to thrive on identical reproducibility to create widespread meaning. In this way, we find ourselves approaching something new, yet grounded in the ritualistic nature of shared memories.

Media Theory Week 3

Adorno and Horkheimer

Adorno follows in the path set by Benjamin. Adorno regarded Benjamin as something of a mentor, someone who needed direction. Together, their ideas formed the foundation of what’s known as The Frankfurt School of critical theory.

• Background: Adorno, a Jewish academic, was forced to leave Germany, while Benjamin never attained a full academic position.
• Focus Areas: Benjamin emphasized mechanical reproduction, while Adorno focused on commodification in art. For Benjamin, the media environment was central; for Adorno, the focus was on the circulation and consumption of media.

Key Concerns

Adorno expressed a more pessimistic outlook than Benjamin, particularly regarding the degradation of art. While Benjamin worried about the influence of fascism and Nazism, Adorno’s focus was democracy and the culture of consumption versus production. For Adorno, art’s transformation into an industry represented a reduction of its value.

• Content vs. Perception: Adorno’s primary interest lay in the content of media, whereas Benjamin was more interested in media’s impact on forms of perception.

Adorno’s Critique of Ideology
Adorno challenged the ideological structures that underlie capitalist society. This critique, rooted in Marxist tradition, highlights the framework that the culture industry imposes—an ideology that operates subconsciously and doesn’t need to be overtly acknowledged.

• Structure and Superstructure: Marxist theory posits that the economic structure of society (the “base”) shapes ideas and cultural perceptions (the “superstructure”). For Adorno, capitalism creates an unchallengeable structure, with freedom framed as an ideology serving bourgeois society.

Capitalist Culture Industry
In capitalist societies, ideas become commodified. As people consume products, they also absorb the ideology they represent. The power of production now enables standardization on a massive scale, a concept integral to Adorno’s view on the capitalist mode of production.

• American Capitalism and Labor Strikes: Adorno observed that American capitalism often hindered labor organization, using minority and Black labor groups to break strikes and pit workers against each other.

Key Themes

• Illusion of Choice: Adorno critiqued the “illusion of choice” in American society, where various individual choices ultimately reinforce uniformity.
• Globalization: Capitalism’s expansion is linked to a colonialist mindset, spreading the American way of life and making individual criticism challenging within a homogenized global culture.
• High vs. Popular Culture: Adorno differentiated between high culture and popular culture, arguing that the culture industry reduces everything to popular culture, thus diminishing critical and existential themes.

Influence and Legacy
Adorno’s political critiques often align with an unorthodox Marxist perspective, challenging the capitalist production model’s imposition on culture. He observed how the culture industry blurs the lines between work and leisure, resulting in the expression of “false needs” rather than genuine desires.

• False Needs and Guilt: According to Adorno, the pervasive reach of the culture industry often induces guilt over pleasurable consumption.

Relevant Figures and Concepts

• Joseph Campbell: Campbell’s conservative views contrast with the superstructure theory. His Hero’s Journey framework suggests an almost formulaic approach to storytelling in American culture.
• Steven Sondheim: Known for his structured work in the “American Trilogy,” Sondheim’s approach reflects formulaic patterns similar to those Campbell observed.

Post Two: Reflections on Adorno and Horkheimer’s Culture Industry

Adorno and Horkheimer (A&H) suggest that, within the culture industry (which they see as synonymous with the entertainment industry), pop culture mimics art. I’d reference artists like Paolozzi, Hamilton, and Andy Warhol as pioneers of the pop movement, infusing their work with a self-awareness visible to consumers both in person and through reproductions. A&H argue that the public’s compulsion to consume such “faux-art” products despite recognizing their superficiality signifies a victory for the culture industry. But can art, created with awareness of its own medium's limitations, not transcend those constraints? Might it even protect itself and its audience from the risk of confusing individuality with pseudo-individuality?

The Surrealists might agree. For instance, Magritte’s The Treachery of Images explores whether a single painting of a pipe is a deceptive replacement for the artist’s original idea. Across eras, artists respond to new media by emphasizing the medium as part of the art itself, akin to a circus performer who presents the tools of the act as part of the performance before it formally begins.

A&H’s view that the culture industry “robs the individual of his function” suggests they neither consider nor tolerate the individual’s role in maintaining the powerful social structures that ultimately entertain and sustain society. The industry’s nature may indeed be shaped by those at the top rather than the structure itself—or perhaps the two are inseparable.

On Gesamtkunstwerk
The concept of Gesamtkunstwerk, or the idea that all forms of art could merge into a single “work,” strikes me as overly optimistic. A&H seem to imply humans have a vast diversity of ideas beyond biological or psychological constraints. Joseph Campbell’s work, such as The Hero with a Thousand Faces, points to universal psychological elements across mythologies, hinting that our narratives are often dictated by common, perhaps innate, themes. Both auratic art and mass-produced culture industry products resonate with us because they serve a shared, primeval need for familiar storytelling.

A&H seem almost embarrassed by our creative simplicity, perhaps bargaining with themselves by arguing that we are “dumbing ourselves down” instead of acknowledging that we may have “figured ourselves out.” This makes it difficult for me to fully agree with their claim that the culture industry “perpetually cheats its consumers out of what it perpetually promises.” While I accept that escapist entertainment may control us by distracting us, we consume these products willingly, even if alternatives are limited. Perhaps my concepts of individuality might indeed align more with A&H’s pseudo-individuality, as they propose.

Culture Industry vs. Entertainment
A&H equate the culture industry with the entertainment business, suggesting that commodified art lacks genuine understanding. Successful productions, however, require an acute awareness of both the quality of the art and the target audience. The idea that demand will be seamlessly replaced by obedience is unnerving, as is the challenge of discussing theories that assume the masses may be unaware or indifferent to these very theories. Such assertions can feel dismissive and alienating.

As a media consumer, I find meaning even in the culture industry’s “meaningless” products. Nostalgia, as a transcendent force, allows individuals to project their personal interpretations onto mass-produced content, reindividuating it.

Art for Capital’s Sake
The culture industry moves art away from being “art for art’s sake,” favoring capitalist motives. Assembly-line culture creates the illusion of product customization when, in reality, all variations serve the same basic function. This conditioning molds society into subsets that consume different forms of a singular product.

Despite A&H’s assertions that choice is an illusion, I maintain some agency in ascribing meaning to these products. While they argue this is a false sense of freedom, perhaps, as Thomas Gray put it, “Ignorance is bliss.”

Post Three: Semiotics and Myth

I was genuinely excited to dive into this course’s discussion on semiotics. The Saussureian equation, as outlined by Barthes, presents the signifier and the signified together creating a sign. Barthes further suggests that myth functions as a second-order semiological system, where the sign from one context takes on the role of signifier in a new chain of meaning.

Barthes emphasizes that myths are historical and, therefore, subject to change over time. His example of the black soldier and the lion, when stripped of historical context, shows how their original meaning can become alienated. Myth, according to Barthes, thrives on meaning-starved, incomplete images—like caricatures, pastiches, and symbols.

For 20th-century Americans, especially young males of the golden era of comics, Siegel and Shuster’s Kal-El (Superman) might serve as a mythological figure. Imagining future generations discovering fragments of comics, one might wonder how these symbols of popular culture will represent our present-day myths.

Eco’s Redundancy in Pop Culture
I agree and disagree with Eco’s claim that a character like Superman, bound by narrative formulas, represents redundancy. Eco argues that Superman’s appeal lies in a formulaic storytelling style, yet I believe readers find delight in the minutiae of Superman’s world rather than just its redundancy. Eco suggests monotony defines serialized worlds, but I see it more as reliability—a steadying force for readers seeking consistency amidst the uncertainty of the early 20th century.

One of my favorite Superman stories, Superman Annual 11: For the Man Who Has Everything (1985), reflects the semiotic richness of the character. The plot involves an alien parasite that traps Superman in a fantasy of wish fulfillment while feeding on his life force, exploring the emotional limits of Superman’s humanity. This story connects the reader and character through existential struggle, illustrating a parallel between Superman’s escapist world and the comic industry’s own dependence on its readers’ desires.

Post Four: Hall’s Insights on Media Production

Hall offers significant insights into the processes of message creation, transmission, and consumption in media. He suggests that while television production “originates the television discourse,” it does not form a closed system. Viewer culture, through feedback, subtly informs production, though this input isn’t always deliberate or consistent.

Hall’s example of broadcast media sparked questions about audience influence. Can crowdfunding be viewed as a mechanism that closes the feedback loop, allowing viewers to control content creation? Through financial backing, audiences essentially communicate their preferences, adding a discursive layer to content production.

The professor’s discussion on Pierce’s semiotics was helpful in understanding Hall’s classification of television as an iconic sign—one that shares characteristics with what it represents. Semiotics, in media theory, serves as a fundamental vocabulary for examining the structures and patterns we’ve experienced since childhood.

Hall’s discussion of polysemy—the idea that a single sign can have multiple meanings—challenges the precision of semiotics, which typically aims to clarify meaning. Polysemy seems to extend semiotics into areas that might otherwise be difficult to analyze, giving it flexibility in interpretation.

Post Five: Baudrillard and Simulacra

Baudrillard’s provocative notion that “God is the simulacra of man” struck me profoundly. He argues that humanity creates replicas of ideals, yet often condemns these very fabrications once aware of their constructed nature. Initially, I found this perspective somewhat aggressively anti-religious; after all, organized religion and its simulacra have historically brought joy and structure to people’s lives. Baudrillard’s point, however, seems to be…

(Note: This entry is incomplete)