Peter's Sections: Understanding Media Response due 10/8 by 10PM

At first it was difficult to understand Marshall McLuhan’s statement that “the medium is the message”, as he went on and on from the electric light to selections of Shakespeare and then to the mechanic functions of an airplane to the French Revolution and so on. His elaborately written and far-reaching arguments and examples may seem a bit confusing although his “theory” is rather quite simple and concise as it sounds. It seems to me that McLuhan didn’t appreciate the way in which people tend to only be concerned about what is obviously portrayed to them (the content) and flat out ignore the medium. “Hot media” innovations such as movies and radios bring forth their own evident data to the audience who only take the content of the entertainment as being the message when in fact the characteristics of the new technology itself may create significant changes in society over a long period of time. The electric light on the other hand, as McLuhan says, does not have any “content” and therefore doesn’t have direct communication. The characteristics of the medium itself have created large scale changes in history. The message is not of answers to questions like “what kind, when or where etc.” but is the way in how society is altered through the innovation which in itself is the change. Things like a melody or a house are not going to questioned in terms of “content” (what it’s about) because the importance is the characteristics of what is simply is. The “form and function” of the medium is completely united. It would be apparent that the Revolution was affected by the kind of content that was printed on newspapers, but looking beyond the obvious, the print and typography itself was what truly carried out the unaware changes. McLuhan compares the technology of media to natural resources that are crucial in shaping a society. Not depending on what type of content is exposed, if people rely too much on a few mediums of technology such as the television and the radio, they can take control of the entire community. I can see that McLuhan wanted humans to look more carefully into the “bigger picture” of how the innovations of media can produce mass changes in society rather than just concentrating on what the new technology can show you on the spot. In a way, he seems to be warning us about the negative effects a medium can bring forth. The type of show portrayed, whether a cartoon or some violent film will still have more significance to me than the idea of it being just one of a diverse category of mere “content” although I understand that the character of the medium by itself has carried out tremendous effects on our societies and cultures. » blehhh's blog | add new comment

Where does one get the real message in a piece of work? From the intention of the artist, or perhaps from the effect that it has on society as a whole? But it is not from any of these things that a message is produced, but, in fact, from the media that one can hope to discover the real message, according to Marshall Mcluhan in his book, Understanding Media. “The medium is the message” is his message. He displays several examples of his theory, starting with a machine. One may say what one does with a machine that is the meaning, but that is not the truth. It is the effect it has on everyone. Another example is the light bulb. Just a simple light bulb, providing a small amount of light to fill a small room, it has no other content, which can possibly contain a separate message, such as writing in a speech. The message is unnoticeable when simply looking at the light bulb by itself, but when one considers the advancement in culture the light bulb has provided, whether it be a streetlight providing light for drivers after dark or a lamp used by someone to read a book, it has a massive impact on history. Another example might be a television show. The creators may have an intention for showing the program, but it is how it altered our behavior to watch the show that matters. Which brings up Mcluhan’s next point, hot and cold media. The amount of information within a piece will determine its “temperature.” A “hot” medium has a large amount of information provided within its content. A “cold” media requires much more input from the viewer in that there is little information provided in its contents. Mcluhan uses several examples: a photograph is “hot” because it requires no input of information from the viewer, while a cartoon is ”cold” because it requires much input from the viewer; a radio is “hot” because all the necessary information is provided to the listener, while a telephone is “cold” because it requires input from the listener to keep the conversation going. This leads onto Mcluhan’s next point about the “Reversal of the Overheated Medium.” In this, he only speaks of “hot” media, in that media is becoming overheated in an “explosion” and will result in society returning to simpler times. He uses the East and West as an example, stating that the West, moving form mechanical to electric, has begun to create an implosion instead of an explosion, traveling in the direction of the East, while the East is doing the exact opposite, going in the direction of the West. The reading concludes with Mcluhan’s chapter entitled “The Gadget Lover”. He states that, going along with the myth that men are fascinated by any extension of themselves that are not directly themselves, we do so as an “autoamputation,” as a way for the body to avoid irritation. The wheel is an extension of the human foot and electric technology is an extension of the central nervous system. This extension will bring about a sense of shock or numbness, which the nervous system has to trigger to avoid pain or discomfort. Because of this numbness, it is possible to observe that these machines are an extension of the human body, and men are like the sex organs, which keep the technology reproducing.

The art of media as “hot” and “cold” refers to pace, adaptability, and freedom, but first, what is “hot” and “cold.” Marshall Mcluhan states that hot media is “one that extends one single sense in ‘high definition’ [which means] the state of being well filled with data.” This extends to the idea of a media which contains an explosive amount of data, so much as to lead the viewer or reader to understand the idea or concept completely. A few examples that he has provided are movies, and photographs. Movies can take up to years to create due to their complexity in their creation processes. Movies introduce the viewer to the situation and include events that lead to its climax and tie it up in a resolution. Photographs acts much like movies in the sense that it is a set picture. The reader is not left to ponder on what an item is, or what might be happening because the photograph already displays it in its context. Cold media, unlike hot media, leads the reader to ponder. It provides the viewer or reader with a “meager amount of information.” A few examples that Marshall Mcluhan provides us with are television and a speech. Television requires less time than a movie and is usually less complex. It usually includes a series of ongoing shows that provides lots of gaps for the viewer to fill in themselves. That is the art of Television. Many viewers use it as a topic of discussion and this fits the discussion perfectly as many different ideas may spawn from a single episode, unlike movies where everything happens. The speech, unlike the photograph, makes the reader contemplate about what the writer is trying to say. In a speech, the writer uses various techniques such as imagery and metaphors to try to describe to the reader what the writer is trying to express. Unlike the photograph where the viewer can understand completely what the photographer is trying to express, the reader must visualize the picture or item themselves from the little words provided by the writer. So what does all of this have to do with pace and adaptability? This can all be simplified into the idea that hot media is dense while cold media is fragmented. Marshall Mcluhan explains this with relationships between the past and the present. Take the Television for example, it was hot in the past but now it is cool. In the past, we did not understand the technology of televisions; how it worked or what capabilities it possessed. It was new to us, and delivered information at an intense rate at that time. Now, with TV’s present in almost every household, it has come to be part of our culture. It is part of our everyday lives and because we are used to it, it isn’t so much of a shock. We have adapted to the pace of the television and thus, turned it from hot to cool. Another example would be the waltz and the twist. The waltz is hot while the twist is cool because of how much freedom is allowed by each dance. The waltz is a restricted dance that rarely allows the dancer to add flavor to it. It is a 4 step motion with a little jump at every interval where direction is changed. The twist on the other hand is “a cool, involved and chatty form of improvised gesture” it is not restricted like the waltz; it allows the dancer to freely move as he/her wishes, thus the characteristic of freedom. Marshall Mcluhan explains the idea of hot and cold media to everyday life. Because hot and cold media is prominent through everyday life, it must be regulated to maintain structure. A too hot society will result in too much information at one time resulting to a collapse as in our culture. It would increase the pace so much that no one would be able to keep up and it collapses. A too cold society would limit productivity and provide little efficiency due to the slow pace of information fed. This is not the limit of this topic as media can be regulated accordingly to certain situations, such as in a sports club. British clubman has long excluded the hot topics of religion and politics to maintain a placid atmosphere of companionship and amiability through the club. Hot is rapid and confined while cold is sluggish and free. Although they are opposites, one may not exist without the other, but exist in harmony together. They regulate society and if not properly balanced or used correctly, society will collapse.

Marshall McLuhan’s piece “Understanding the Media” explores the idea that “medium is the message”. By this, McLuhan believes that in the media, the medium which information is being transmitted through is more important than the actual information or content being presented. To support this McLuhan turns to the electric light as an example. Much like print or radio, electric light is a medium for information and very simple by itself. So by using light to “spell out some brand name” or send information visually with advertisements or signs, one can grab a person’s attention and broadcast their own content out into the world. But what is more important, the simple medium of the electric light, or the information that is being broadcasted? At first it seems that the information being broadcasted would prove more important because we can actually refer to the information later rather than referring to the light that presented it. But then think of it this way, which is dependent on the other? Without the information we would simply have the electric light, but without the electric light we would be left with nothing. That is how McLuhan refers to “medium is the message” since without the medium, there is no content or message anyways. McLuhan then delves into the different aspects of media, namely whether it is “Hot or cold”. To easily explain it, hot media require “low participation” while cool media requires “high participation”. For example, McLuhan explains how a photograph is hot media since all it requires to get its message across is for the audience to look at it. On the other hand, using a telephone may be cool media since it requires a user to both listen with one ear and respond into a speaker. Altogether this is very relevant because it can help determine how effective a certain medium of media is. Hot media is very independent on its own, and can project the same amount of information to all audiences, while cool media can only be as effective as the audience is participative which will obviously limit its value depending on its audience. Lastly McLuhan continues to interpret the advantages and disadvantages of hot and cool medias, and how we adapt to them. On one hand we accept that hot media is in fact more effective than cool media, but that also poses a threat to our society as we continue to value it. For example, one of the hottest medias is the television, a medium in which little participation is needed to fully experience as much information as possible. Unfortunately, our society has become deeply influenced by mediums such as the television, and such dependency cannot totally benefit our society because it keeps us from continuing to expand and try other mediums and also expanding how we broadcast and take in new information and content.

In the excerpt we read from Understanding Media, by Marshall McLuhan, he discusses how it is the medium itself, and not the content of the medium (The television, and not the television programs) that would have the most social impact. Furthermore, McLuhan also suggests that the message of all mediums is a “change of scale.” To prove that the “medium is the message,” McLuhan describes how the light bulb, a medium without “content”, can get its content from anything that it illuminates. “Whether the light is being used for brain surgery or night baseball is a matter of indifference. It Could be argued that these activities are in some way the “content” of the electric light, since they could not exist without the electric light.” (pg. 9) Now, if we look at light as a medium for action that would otherwise be unseen, we can say that the light controls the “scale and form of human association and action.” (pg. 9) In other words, the medium (light bulb) shows us how involved we as humans are in the action that is taking place, which is more important than the action itself. Additionally, McLuhan goes on to say how the content of the medium “blinds us to the character of the medium” (pg.9). For instance, most people don't believe that the light bulb has content until it is used to spell out something instead of realizing that the content of the light bulb is anything that it illuminates. The other major point McLuhan tries to explain is how the message of all mediums is a “change of scale.” “This is merely to say that the personal and social consequences of any medium-that is, of any extension of ourselves-result from the new scale that is introduced into our affairs by each extension of ourselves, or by any new technology.” (pg. 7) To put it simply, all mediums are an extension of human creativity or technology and increase the scale on the way we change our surroundings. While McLuhan touches on this in the light bulb example he explains it better while discussing the invention of the locomotive. “The railway did not introduce movement or transportation or wheel or road into human society, but it accelerated and enlarged the scale of previous human functions, creating totally new kinds of cities and new kinds of work and leisure. This happened whether the railway functioned in a tropical or northern environment, and is quite independent of the freight or content of the railway medium.” (pg. 8) It seems that what McLuhan is trying to say that it was the railway medium that enhanced the scale of our previous living conditions independent from the location and content of the medium. The other section of Understanding Media we read was on “hot” and “cold” media. This is the idea that all mediums have different levels of mental participation. For instance, a “hot” media or "high definition" media could be movies or radio, because they don't require much mental effort from the viewer or listener. On the other hand “cold” media or “low definition” media could be books, comics, and television, because they made the viewer or reader use more than one sense to get the maximum value from the media. While most people can agree with books and comics because it requires the reader to fill in the blanks with their imagination, television was much harder to imagine as a “cold” media. To back up his idea, McLuhan uses the Kennedy-Nixon debates to show that “hot” media was more suited for Nixon since most people that heard him on the radio thought he did better, and “cool” for Kennedy because people that saw him on TV thought he did better due to his persona. Overall, this was a confusing and interesting read. I'm still not sure if I fully agree with McLuhan's thesis that the medium is the message, but it does make an interesting argument. Additionally, I personally would consider TV to be a “hot” media just like movies because I think that it doesn't take much thought from the viewer to enjoy television.

Examining the cultural background of communication and technology in the 1960’s is important to fully appreciate Marshal McLuhan’s views in Understanding Media: The Extension of Man. His work was published in 1964, roughly ten years after television became a common commodity in American homes and after the film industry began to view color as a key method to attracting audiences to motion pictures. McLuhan’s theories may have developed as the influence of hot-medium, televisions and motion pictures, became more widespread in the 60’s. As the mediums became more technologically advanced, the way they communicated their message consequently had a more profound effect on the audience. In a culture where technology is beginning to play a considerable role in a person’s daily life, I can see why McLuhan developed his views of communication and its influence in social change. In his work McLuhan stresses that the medium is the message and the content under the medium has very little importance. In one of his examples, he proclaims that a painting style in itself is the message of that painting. That statement would make little sense when related to Leonardo da Vinci’s paintings. Why did da Vinci become such an influential figure if other artists had access to that medium at that time? McLuhan writes, “Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot. For the ‘content’ of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.” Here he describes the content of a medium as something that sidetracks us from the real message that the medium carries. McLuhan seems to be more interested in the subliminal effects the medium, may it be printed books or radio, has in the lives of adults or children. I can personally relate to this theory since I live in a society that’s dependant on technology. This growing power of technology and of hot mediums results in changes in human and social psychology. He writes “It is this continuous embrace of out own technology in daily use that puts us in the Narcissus role of subliminal awareness and numbness in relation to these images of ourselves.” As a result of the medium and its message, we are enslaved by technology and submit to its message.

Marshall Mcluhan’s Understanding the Media emphasizes many of his viewpoints, which in many ways becomes confusing as the reading goes along. He believes that “the medium is the message,” wherein a content of one medium, is in fact, another medium. He stresses out that the medium is more important than the content by acknowledging its existence thoroughly with multiple examples. For example, the television and the newspaper are what influences society in a great way. However, I disagree with Mcluhan’s argument in that today’s society, what sells are the contents of a medium. The television, for example, will not be successful as a product that was designed to provide entertainment if it were not for the shows that are aired. The newspaper would not be sold if the articles printed in it had nothing of value. Mcluhan supported his claim by using the light bulb to explain how each object affects each other. For instance, the light bulb helps brighten up dark areas, give light to people reading at night, illuminate baseball games, and many more. Without the light bulb, these situations would not function or exist. Mcluhan also uses cubism to support his claim--- the medium is the message. A cubism painting, for example, exhibits many sides of a picture when seen simultaneously. Although these sides make multiple perspectives, the illusion of creating reality is ignored due to instant gratification, which then defines the quote “the medium is the message.” A guitar, for example, rendered cubistically both shows and tells the viewer that it is a guitar. Mcluhan’s Understanding the Media also talks about “hot” and “cold” media. He defines “hot” medium as having a “higher definition,” as opposed to “cold” medium. He sites a photograph, for example, as a hot medium because it involves low participation, compared to a cartoon, which involves more participation on the viewers’ side. Another example of “hot” and “cold” media outlined in the argument by the author deals with women’s glasses and their chances of getting courted by men. It says that women with clear glasses get less attention because everything is seen. Conversely, women with dark glasses are given more attention because there is a sense of mystery; men want to see what is behind the glasses. Mcluhan concludes his argument by saying that people have to numb themselves in order for them to completely accept media as part of their lives. He uses the nervous system to emphasize his belief, for the readers to believe in him.

Marshall McLuhan’s theory of “the medium is the message” is a derivative of the classic argument of the nature of technology, that is, whether technology is neutral as opposed to when technology is culturally loaded with value (either positive or negative). Arnold Pacey makes the argument in his The Culture of Technology, that technology is almost never neutral because rarely does technology exist completely outside what Pacey calls the “web of human activity.” He states that the instant technology enters this web; it assumes certain values because it was made for a certain purpose. In Understanding Media, McLuhan narrows down this topic by specifically referring to the technology of media and its effects on society within the “web of human activity.” However, McLuhan, contrary to Pacey, argues that the media itself—the technology as a neutral existence—is enough to influence “the scale and form of human association and action,” and that the content of the media (the cultural value) is insignificant (9). Through a very rigorous, convoluted, and slightly abstract argument, McLuhan only makes a few prominent points. He utilizes the example of a light bulb to demonstrate a technology that carries no content, and yet wields incredible influence in society. This parallel to all variations of media forms the foundation for the rest of McLuhan’s theory. He continues by extracting print culture and electric speed as examples of “the medium is the message,” and highlights the idea that radio and TV, like cotton and oil, have become “fixed charges” in society thus forming the skeleton on which culture molds around. Perhaps the most interesting and unique concept McLuhan introduced, was the idea of “hot” and “cold” media. He defines these terms in respect to how a specific medium operates. Hot mediums tend to me well filled with data leaving the audience with little participation, and cool mediums are those that leave blanks allowing for higher participation and intrigue. Also, the distinction between specialist technologies and nonspecialist technologies is emphasized, and their respective abilities to detribalize and retribalize. Furthermore, McLuhan discusses how these different types of mediums can not only interact with society and culture, but with each other as well (such as using a cool medium as a tool to counteract the influence of a hot medium within a community). This leads me to the most memorable part of the reading for me—when McLuhan applies the concept of cool medium so sexual attraction. He states that a mysterious woman tends to be more attractive to a man than a woman that is easily read. This is where it all clicked. As humans, there are times when we want things spelled out for us so that there is clarity and distinction, and other times, it is the unknown that attracts us the most. This principle applies not only to media or sex, but also to all aspects of life including poetry. Sometimes we just want it in black in white—tell me what this poem is trying to convey, and other times we enjoy the ambiguity of it all. The application of McLuhan’s theories beyond the obvious is a device he incorporates frequently throughout Understanding Media, which I find very effective at times, and very confusing and distracting other times. McLuhan’s last few points note the significance of “break boundaries” in systems and the notion of technologies as extensions. He cites Kenneth Boulding’s definition that a “break boundary [is when] the system suddenly changes into another or passes some point of no return in its dynamic processes,” and mentions radio and movies as a model of cross-fertilization. Also, he cites Hans Selye and Adolphe Jonas in their explanation of technology as extensions created to maintain equilibrium. He ultimately states that the nature of modern media, in conjunction with this balance, is impersonal and unconscious.

I’ve read from somewhere that American college students are the world’s top 2% in the context of education. And as an American college student in our twenty some years of life, we’ve been flooded with different forms of media whether we choose to have them available to us or not. And to this very day and this very moment, we voluntarily and/or involuntarily submerge ourselves into the continuous flow of incoming media. Whether it be movies, television, radio, internet or other forms of media we definitely let them influence us in a way or another. I’ve never actually thought about why I take certain messages from certain things I see. From a piece of photograph to a movie, or even a song or a play, I look into it and my mind takes it in to interpret it. What we see, is not what we always get. What these pictures, movies, sounds, and other data and sets of information are trying to achieve may lie far beyond what the physical appearance bears. It all matters on how people take such sensual stimulation and interpret them, what kind of message they take away from them, and what kind of impact they have afterwards. I think the question lies in how such impacts can be created. Not everyone will interpret what they receive in the same way. People are ‘formed’ as who they are and how they think by many different attributes. Some major attributes can be cultural background or the religious belief of a person. Because such factors have great influence on decision making and value system of a person, people from different backgrounds won’t be taking in the same messages nor will they have the same impact on them. I’ve experienced such matter first-handedly. I spent my summer in Mongolia two years ago. I was there with a religious group from the States, and our group had to drive around the fields of Mongolia and to show a film that promotes their specific religious belief to whomever we come across as we drive. As I watched the film for the first time, I realized how archaic the film was! It was black and white with very poor quality. Already knowing that there are many other newer version of the film available, I asked one of the staff there of the reasons why they’re not using the most recent version of the film. Before hearing the answer of the staff, I thought it was the most appropriate that we show people the most visually stimulating version of them film. But what the staff told me was that people in the fields of Mongolia rarely have a television as they constantly move around the end grass fields, and when they actually do have a television, the quality is quite horrible. The staff added that the old, black and white, poor quality film is indeed the most effective way for them to be impacted. Nothing in its own stands for any meaning. Drop a toy figure of Yoda from the movie Star Wars in the middle of the jungle in Amazon, to a tribe where they’ve never had any contact with the American movie industry. It will mean nothing to you, or perhaps be interpreted in ways that goes beyond our imagination. What we see, hear, read, imagine, interpret, and realize are given its meaning and given our meaning because of the medium that they belong, the medium that they are to be interpreted. We are so used what we have now because they are considered as the major associations expected from us to make. Association and involvement that are expected from the individuals are measured in a completely biased point of view. Why not from a tribal member mentioned earlier? Why not a Chinese man who lives in the city of Beijing with two young daughters? Contents become messages and message become impacts when there are connections made, understandings formed between the presented media and the people who take them in. Unless such association is made first, expected, or intended, influence won’t be likely to be produced.

Marshall Mcluhan’s “Understanding Media” revolves around the effect of media on the new masses. Mcluhan delves into how people have lost track of what a medium is and a medium's intended effect – is on the general populous, later focusing on how people are failing to distinguish “extended reality” and reality of the world. Overall I support – and have believed – most of his beliefs for some time. Mcluhan seems to have a firm grasp on the subject, as he explains extremely thoroughly of the effects medium, electricity, “hot” and “cold” medium has on different societies and cultures. He begins his ideas by using the example of the light bulb as “pure information,” in which the object that is normally not seen as a medium can be turned into a medium by simply arranging the bulb into letters. His view of the light bulb as pure information leads to his discussion of how a medium is cornered into conforming to a certain type, in which the characteristic of the medium itself is ignored, and in turn, how the presentation of the medium is seen, the viewer ignorant of the essence of the medium itself. Mcluhan seems to have a very distantly placed view on things, as he is able to take a step back and observe the world for what it really is and the effects a medium can have on a society. Mcluhan extends the light bulb metaphor further, extending this phenomenon to the advent of electricity and its effects on society, and why it has become ignored as a medium. In a society infatuated with electricity, instant gratification, and shallow observation, (which seems to hold more true today than of Mcluhan’s days.) Mcluhan calls for a study of the mediums themselves, declaring that in today’s society people no longer ask the question of which came first, chicken or the egg, and automatically assume that “the chicken [is] an egg’s idea for getting more eggs.” (Mcluhan, 12) Mcluhan is consistent in pointing out that people are quick to overlook things that are in the real world, citing (along with medium) the cubist movement as a prime example of showing how the medium is the message, in which the medium’s message is to present the medium. In short, Mcluhan uses cubism as an example of how the medium is itself a tool for broadcasting itself. I agree wholeheartedly with Mcluhan, as in today’s society we have a tendency to look at art, TV, or movies, and judge its quality by what the medium communicates over what is done with the medium itself, and if such a piece comes up, it is usually looked over in favor of visually driven pieces. Mcluhan’s discussion of “medium is the message” is summed up in his summed up in his analogy: “…the ‘content’ of a medium is like the juicy piece of meat carried by the burglar to distract the watchdog of the mind.” I found Mcluhan’s careful connection of the effects other medium (TV, phone, fax) have on societies to the effects the light bulb (and by connection electricity) has on other cultures and society, one particular noteworthy example being the story of the missionaries handing out steel axes to all members of a particular tribe, which eventually crippled a part of the tribe’s culture, along with the cultural difference and the eventual technological difference the two countries in his example of the “hotline” with Washington and Russia. These are his examples of the possible effects of hot technology on a cool one and vice versa. While the first portion of his readings focus strictly on medium itself, his writings of “Media Hot and Cold” revolves more towards the social effects medium can have on a society, in which there are “hot” societies or technology, and in turn, “cold” societies and technology. The two are distinguished by defining the hot as one with a high level of descriptions - his example being movies as "hot" and TV as "cold." His discussions in the later chapters are interesting in how well his words hold up to our society even today, where we define ourselves by what we possess because it is pushed on to us from the media, and his eventual discussion of the Narcissus, in which we become infatuated with what we see and disconnected with society. Just as Narcissus became infatuated with what he saw in the river that led to his demise, Mcluhan connects this example with society, where we are so absorbed into what we see that we lose track of what we see versus what is real. In the medium of television we are too quick to fall into what we see and see what is presented as what Mcluhan views as “extended” parts of ourselves. Mcluhan concludes his discussion in a scary thought that we fail to notice in our day to day lives – “We have to numb our central nervous system when it is extended or exposed, or we will die.” Because what is presented as medium is now absorbed through us as an extension of ourselves, I agree with Mcluhan that the world is in danger of (or already victims?) confusing what the medium presents and reality itself. Mcluhan not only explains what the intended idea of a medium should be and what we have forgotten of what a medium is, but focuses into the sociological effects and the philosophical approach a medium (most easily explained through its example of a light bulb) can have on a society, how it can be used, and how it cannot be used.

Marshall Mcluhan’s theories on how media is presented to the world are interesting and controversial. To understand all of his theories at first seem to be difficult, because of his use of high diction, yet I found that most of his ideas were previous thoughts I have had about media. From my understanding, Mcluhan’s thesis and strongest argument seemed to be about “the Medium is the Message”, and his theory on the electric light bulb. He states that medium carries more impact than the content. But how can this be? His example about the light bulb doesn’t even apply, yes the light bulb is the provider and has a great impact, but without the light being emitted (content), there would be nothing. I believe that both content and the medium hold an equal balance and both impact society evenly, neither one could exist or function without the other. Mcluhan also expresses his thoughts on how media is a weapon, and that it remains more influential than any lethal weapon could ever hold. His thoughts on this were almost identical to my own. Media has always been more powerful than any conventional weapon, and it is by far one of the best brainwashing tools this planet has ever known. Although I agreed with some of his speculations, his arguments could have been more concise and written in a lower level of diction. In his second article Mcluhan dives into how higher and lower technology help shape the world in what he calls “hot” and “cold” media. He explains how disruptive a “hot” media can be to a society of “cold” media. Although the newer technology at first seems like it can improve society, it may in fact destroy it. Mcluhan goes onto explain how modern societies begin to worship and embrace new technologies, and even become dependent on them. Yet his evidence fails to support the idea that “hot” media can be beneficial to our society and further expand on the human expression of art.

The statement that the medium is the message is a general sweeping statement that the reading delves deeper into. In essence, it means that while the content displaced by a given medium is often the focus of most people, greater importance lies with the medium itself. Because with the creation of every new medium, our society and culture as a whole will become redefined and molded around the medium. Fragmentation of the whole has left people with an inability to look at the big picture. People have come to look at individual parts as separate entities of each other, without any sort of comprehension of the whole. Information transferred isn’t nearly as important or ground-braking as the means by which it is transferred, and the plain and simple fact that that transferable means exists. In my opinion, the most fascinating example given by Mcluhan is the light bulb. Electric technology invented and introduced by western civilizations had a tremendous impact on society. Though it may not be conventionally thought of as one, the light bulb is a form of medium. Although it transfers no information (save should the light bulb be shaped in such a manner that it spells out words or pictures) the light generated by the light bulb creates a universe all it’s own, a place previously unusable. Consequently, information and content can be created and transferred in this universe. Information can, in fact, be transferred by many different means. Though it may seem as though medium choice were an arbitrary choice for the transferor, different mediums send inherently different messages and offer intrinsically different levels of interaction on the part of the information receiver. McLuhan described the different type of media based largely on this idea of the level of interaction and correspondence that ensues, the amount of effort that must go on on the part of the receiver. This is his theory of hot and cold media. Hot media consists of mediums of high definition that offer strict and vast amounts of information and require little participation or effort on the part of the receiver. Examples of such media are Movies and Radio, which both directly address the viewer/listener and offer no room for participation. Cold media is just the opposite, media that is low definition and requires participation and effort in order for it to be truly understood. One such example is television, a medium which take a lot more effort than a movie to understand. As well, a telephone conversation requires participation, where as listening to a radio program requires none. For these reasons, television and telephone conversations are cold media. This article presents many fascinating points that are easily ignored by contemporary society. It was a pretty difficult reading to get through, and I feel as if though at some points Mcluhan’s point is somewhat lost in his complex sentence structure and elaborate, (though at times humorous) examples, not to mention his vastly massive diction. To truly understand Mcluhan’s concept of media, it is necessary to immediately put such knowledge to work. Mcluhan discusses extensively the effect of literature as a medium and this reading is in and of itself a form of that literical medium as a conduit for informational content. Were it not for this forum of reflection and analysis of the reading, that is to say were it only assigned reading to be absorbed, it would be luke warm medium, one of which distributes information without much effort on the part of the absorber [save of course for the effort to read (which in the case of this article was rather superfluous)], but the action of public discussion cools this media down to a rather brisk cold media. In conclusion, McLuhan rocks my world.

The Medium Is the Message Call me an idiot, but I didn’t know until now that media was the plural of medium until now... But anyways, in this section McLuhan theorizes that a medium, when introduced into a society, will change society. This might sound pretty vague, but McLuhan emphasizes that is it the medium itself that changes society and not the message that the medium might carry. One of McLuhan’s examples is the light bulb; a light bulb does not carry a message, it carries light, which in its simplicity is not used for the specific purpose of communicating. Therefore, McLuhan states, a light bulb is a medium (of light) that has changed society. McLuhan’s concept of “content” versus “medium” can be seen in his IBM example. Although IBM’s content consisted of office equipment and business machines, their medium was of processing information, which was why they were making money. Other major technological advances that McLuhan focuses his attention on are the technologies of print, radio, film, TV, movies, and above all, electricity. A test ran by Professor Wilbur Schramm on the effect of TV on children’s’ lives proved inconclusive because his study focused on content. McLuhan states that a similar study focused on content would also prove inconclusive if conducted 500 years ago on the effect of printed books on society. This argument is used to back his claim that the medium creates the change, while the effects of content are secondary or nonexistent. Media Hot and Cold McLuhan’s concept of hot and cold divides the amount of participation is needed to use a medium. Hot mediums allow the audience to sit back and take in the contents of the medium with minimal participation or thinking. Examples of hot mediums are radio, news and lectures. Cool mediums require participation and thinking, examples are dialogues, telephone conversations, and various forms of art. The concept of hot and cold can also be applied to people, countries, or even periods of time. The US is hot compared to backwards countries, city slickers are hot compared to rural citizens, and the mechanical age was hot while the TV era is cool. Reversal of the Overheated Medium This chapter deals with a critical point where a medium of structure changes. This is described as a “break boundary” which McLuhan interchanges with “reversal.” Break boundaries affect society as a whole, often changing many aspects of everyday life with it. Break boundaries often involve changing man from a nomad to a stationary being and is often preceded by the cross fertilization of systems. Examples of such systems are the print and the steam press, or the radio and film. The Gadget Lover This chapter got a little weird on me with auto-amputation and random subjects that sounded more like pseudo-psychology more than anything that could ever be related to visual arts. McLuhan suggests that our central nervous system should be “numbed” before any sudden changes are made to the physical body. This is applied to society in the way that because people these days are aware of everything that happens across the country instantly (due to technology), we must numb ourselves before there is any major change to the infrastructure that we are so familiar with. McLuhan states “In the electric age we wear all mankind as our skin.”

A long article, The Art of Looking in Hitchcock’s Rear Window, written by Stefan Sharff, is about Cinema Art. Since Rear Window is a mainstream film which “responds to the Pythagorean principle of aesthetics, demonstrating harmony, completeness and consistency”, Stefan used it to demonstrate the cinema art. There are many categories of cinema art, like the Marxist, Freudian, sociological and populist kind and focus on examining in detail of the film language. Cinema language is how the film’s rhythm and texture connected with the audiences, so the relationship between the audiences and the protagonist is important. There are two basic modes of film: first, the normal realistic film in the protagonist’s point of view; second, the world across viewed via onlooker. The film, Rear Window represents the first mode, starring with L.B. Jefferies (James Stewart) who is the principal “seer” and has voyeurism, so the audiences are seeing as well as what he is seeing. The audiences follow him and see through some windows of apartments of different floors. For example, “a newlywed couple and a traveling salesman, Mr. Thorwald. Rear Window is an onlooker controlled film and a silent film with incidental music Usually, silent film is using close-ups and medium shots, same axis of view. The other film, The Room with a Views, which is a novel about a young women in the sexually repressed culture of early 20 century, represents the second mode. Because “the onlookers is there to see for us”. “A murderous stabbing takes place in the Piazza Signoria in Floreance and is witnessed by the story’s two protagonists”. Moreover, there are more technique of film language. Although theatre audience mostly sees what the protagonist observes, there is an exception. Hitchcock might plant that protagonist to sleep, which means the audience misses seeing the evidence for solving the problems. Another technique is “recall” – long distance. “one and more abstract yet strangely gratifying when it occurs, take place between an event in the very beginning of the film and one near its end”. Using the same object to occur in different timing or scenes to bring to mind of the audiences what have happened. The last one of recall is “occasionally functional and quite predictatble. The audience can recall the three steps during they are looking at what happened at the last shot. Making a film without knowing all the sight from the protagonist, it would be more interesting and attractive. If you know all the steps right before the result, then the end would be not surprise you. Furthermore, the moving of the camera in the film also is an important part. - using how many shots and how many degrees – trying to make the audiences more attentive by pointing their visual memory.

At first glance, I felt that the McLuhan piece proposed many interesting theories about the role media plays both socially and historically. However, after reading the whole piece I cannot say that I was fully convinced by any of his arguments. For one, I completely disagree with his statement that, “in operational and practical fact, the medium is the message.” Although the medium is a very important factor I cannot be convinced that it is the sole message of any piece of information whether it be film, artwork, or the light bulb. For example, I would not consider a sixty second video of a blank wall to have any message at all. However, I must admit that this proposition is an interesting one, because I had never thought that the mode in which one uses a medium could signal its significance. The only case that comes to mind that I can think might exemplify this is the artwork of Jackson Pollack. Being that his most famous paintings convey no image, I would say that in Pollack artwork the medium (paint) truly is the message. I felt that McLuhan’s analysis was very thought provoking, but I had trouble understanding why he went so in depth into some aspects. For instance, I felt as though the statement that the content of any medium is another medium was a sort of obvious argument that wasn’t absolutely necessary for his greater thesis. Furthermore, McLuhan made some interesting metaphorical connections that I thought were sort of a stretch. One point McLuhan made that I felt was true was that any medium we communicate with is an extension of the human body. Prior to reading this paper I had never thought about media as an extension but after a brief reflection I realize that this argument rings true. By using any form of media to perpetuate our ideals, secrets, aspirations or views of reality, we extend the ways in which we can express ourselves honestly. I found it interesting that McLuhan analyzed the effects of technology on the “new electric world” and how these innovations would continue to morph our realities. His comparison between western literate and mechanical culture and a remote native was a very valid point. I find it easy to agree that “We are no more prepared to encounter radio and TV…than the native of Ghana is able to cope with the literacy that takes him out of his collective tribal world..” Considering the time period in which this was written, McLuhan seems to prophesize the ways in which the “global village” will react to the invocation of new forms of media and technology in culture. In this way, I find that we really are just as lost in the sea of new technology as a native in a “backward society” is in literacy and mechanical developments. Also, I thought that a point worth making on McLuhan’s part was the ability for a new media device to break bonds of current culture. During the time period in which this was written, I am sure that McLuhan was seeing this very idea occur daily with the furthering of mass media devices such as TV and film during the mid-twentieth century. McLuhan’s theory of hot and cold media was a very interesting portion of this piece. At first it was difficult to understand because the telephone and cartoon examples were poorly used. However, as soon as the author stipulated that “hot media” are low in participation and cool media are high in participation I understood immediately. My understanding is that “hot media” are modes of information in which the subject has little room for personal interpretation, whereas, “cold media” is a mode of information in which the definitions are slacked enough to allow for personal analysis and meaning. I thought that the best definition of the difference between hot and cold media was the Charleston and the Twist dances respectively. Additionally, I feel that McLuhan was well ahead of his time by defining something so abstract as hot and cold media, and find that this concept will assuredly help me in the future. One of the most valid points I feel McLuhan made in this excerpt was that “The meaning of a message is the change which it produces in the image” (pg.26). To me, this means that the message a medium conveys is more significant if it has some long term effect on those who are exposed to it. I don’t know that that is what McLuhan was trying to express with that statement but that is how I interpreted it.

In the excerpt from Marshall McLuhan’s Understanding Media, the author argues that media, as a whole, cannot be understood based on the content that it delivers. Furthermore, it falls into the categories of “hot media” and “cold media.” It is through these types that media affects all of mankind. According to McLuhan, the concept of hot and cold media is the way in which humanity can judge a medium’s interaction with man. A hot form of media is one which impresses upon a person directly. There is no interaction that takes place; all information is delivered in a form that requires no analysis to understand. Cold media, conversely, requires a person to complete partially delivered information in order to reach any understanding. A particularly apt example given by McLuhan is that of Francis Bacon’s writings. McLuhan states that “Francis Bacon never tired of contrasting hot and cool prose” (31). Bacon wrote two kinds of texts. One kind incorporated heavily the aphorism, what we today know as a saying or proverb. The other was direct in its conveyance of information. McLuhan deems these forms as “cold” and “hot” respectively. The cold aphorism calls for the reader to interpret Bacon’s saying. The hot form tells the reader exactly what Bacon is trying to say. The hot and cold monikers are applied liberally by McLuhan to any form of technology, from “steel axes” (24) to film and television. It is these concepts of hot and cold media that McLuhan maintains can be used to understand how film and television interact with society. Film is an extremely hot form of media. In projecting its information, it leaves nothing to the imagination. Television, however, is cold (which McLuhan links with “impersonal” [27]). The viewer is given “low definition” (22) information which calls for “filling in” (23) by the mind. McLuhan furthers his ideas by implying that hot media is more of a force of social change than cold media. He gives the example of film and radio’s explosive effect on the developing world. Examples are abundant; it is well known that revolutions can be spread or quashed by those that control the local radio stations. A broader point is behind McLuhan’s observations of media. He states, quite rightly, that the developed nations of the West have been placed in a precarious position by the transition between hot and cold mediums. He compares modern society to that of the Australian natives in Theobald’s The Rich and the Poor whose culture was thrown into disarray when missionaries introduced the steel axe (24). The stone axe, whose materials were rare, was a symbol of power for these people. This was a cold medium. The steel axe, whose material was cheap and abundant, crippled the society as a hot medium. This same change is occurring in the present, though this time the transition is from hot to cold. Film and radio, the mediums which dominated the West for almost 50 years, have come to be replaced by the TV. McLuhan warns that this will throw society into a very different form of disarray. The change will not (or has not, as McLuhan’s text is now somewhat old) be violent. Rather, it will be a passive one (a “cool” change) that removes interpersonal human interaction at an unprecedented level (27). Interestingly, McLuhan is not a doomsayer. According to Understanding Media, change from hot to cool and cool to cool is a natural occurrence in society. As we in the West sit through another cool period, one can only speculate what the next hot form of media to hold society in its vice-like grip will be.

The medium is, in fact, the message. Mcluhan’s message, in his media- analytical Understanding Media, is the medium. Though the most standard line of though for the communication is illustrated with the SMCR model, with the ‘medium’ being separate from the ‘content,’ Mcluhan argues that the medium by which the message is communicated shapes the message, and thus gives it some definition, both in regards of the message itself and in what humans do with both message and media. Mcluhan argues that the content of any medium is another medium. In the instance of the electric light, it is a medium without a message, until it is used for something that could not exist without it, for example brain surgery or night baseball, or for an electric sign containing words and pictures, other media containing messages placed upon the medium of the electric light. Mcluhan also argues that society thinks in terms of the reaction to a message versus the message and the medium it is conveyed through – the scratch versus the itch. In terms of technology, Mcluhan argues against the principle of “it was the computer’s fault that I couldn’t turn in my homework,” as he claims that such a line of thinking would ignore the nature of the medium, the fact that technology is simply an extension of the human being. Mcluhan uses the example of cubism as an affirmation of “the medium is the message.” The style of painting displays all aspects of a scene, or the actual ‘content’ of the painting; thus the medium seems to carry the mission statement of the message (painting): “Look at it all.” Mcluhan also paints media as a natural resource, carrying considerable power within the community, as do other commodities like oil, grain, etc. Also, as a resource in the community, media, being extensions of the human senses, also affect humans’ “personal energies.” Media come in hot or cold. Moving away from the blur of media, message and content, Mcluhan describes a hot- or- not scale for media, coupled with the concepts of “high or low definition,” which are defined by the amount of information the media provides. A hot medium usually is in “high definition” – it is chock full of “data.” A hot medium, such as radio or cinema, leaves little to the imagination of the audience. Cool media leave much for the audience’s imagination, and much for the audience to fill in for themselves. Cool media include the television, the telephone and speech. Hot forms exclude, cool forms include. Mcluhan comments on censorship as less of a moral function and more as a condition of learning. Mcluhan argues that in order to study any intense event and not be shell- shocked by it, the experience must be numbed down, first. This censorship also protects the societal system of values, so as to reduce the impact of, for example, a hot technology taking the place of a cool one. Mcluhan also asserts that in any medium or structure there is a point at which the system spontaneously changes into another, for example cities versus the country; in another time the country was the center of work, however it is now the place for leisure while the city is the apex of the workforce. Mcluhan argues that the most common cause of the system breaks is “cross- fertilization” with another system, such as radio and movies to produce “talkies.” Mcluhan reaffirms that all technology is an extension of the human nervous system, and that in creating technology humans numb their own nervous systems to be able to use the synthetic ones, thus creating an “unconscious” and “apathetic” society. Perhaps media, arguably an offshoot of technology, is not meant to be understood, but rather, as society is going automaton, attempted to be controlled.

Jonathan Wai Vis70N - Marshall Mcluhan tries to show that it is not the content within a film or video that carries the message but rather that medium on which the content is presented that carries the message. In “Understanding Media,” Mcluhan argues that many people ignore media and look straight into the content of the film or video for the meaning. People don’t think that light carries a message but without electric light, there would be no photography, films, or the evolution of media. Many times, the true message is not what we see but how we see a certain medium. Electric light can be used in many ways but each use can be seen as an extension of mankind to try and carry a message across. Technology is expanding at an incredible rate but with each new technology there are new ways to carry the message whether it across land on a train or across oceans on a plane. Mcluhan also presents the idea of hot and cold media. Hot media has much information and presents the listener or viewer with a completion of a single sense. Whereas, cold medium leaves much to the imagination and requires the listener or viewer with a lot needed to be filled in. In a sense, hot mediums exclude and cold mediums include the person who is viewing or listening. Hot mediums are usually new technologies such as steel axes were to Australian natives. When missionaries gave steel axes away to the natives who had primarily used the scarce stone axe, their entire society of values had collapse. This is why many hot mediums must be censored or cooled down to a cool medium before being exposed to the world in order to keep values intact. This is evident today as well as in the past. With the introduction of the Internet as the means by which people connect with others, it has become the store of the world. Anything and everything can be found on the internet and as such many small and/or specialized shops are closing down since there is no longer any need to physically search for and go to the shop. Our culture defines whether a medium is hot or cold. In the US, where most of the world’s new technology is present and accepted, mediums start out hot and quickly cool as they are assimilated into our culture. Whereas in a third world country, the new technology stays hot and is rejected. Hot mediums fill a single sense and therefore are appealing to our culture since most people are lazy. And as Mcluhan says, our culture is so focused on visual mediums that when we first meet someone, we usually drown out the sounds and have to ask couple times what that person’s name is. Mcluhan believes that each medium is an extension of mankind and with each medium mankind has slowly become overwhelmed and in order to compensate, has become numb. Mcluhan also believes that we embrace and worship new technologies so we can use them but his arguments fall short to support this claim because many technologies are helping people express themselves and go beyond the closed area created by the medium.

Understanding Marshall Mcluhan’s “Understanding Media” is by no means a small feat. Not only did Mcluhan provide a vast array of examples that were vague and without much in depth explanation, but he also used many difficult words throughout the majority of his articles. However, from what could be understood, Mcluhan’s thesis must have been that the “medium is the message” and that it is the medium that affects the society, not the context. He also stated that how the media, how intense and how much information it introduces to the senses, can be classified as “hot” or “cold” media. In Mcluhan’s opinion he believes that “medium is the message”. He elaborates on this phrase by providing examples and explaining them. One of the most prominent examples is the electric light and the light bulb. “The electric light is pure information. It is a medium without a message…unless it is used to spell out some verbal ad or name.” (Mcluhan 8). He goes on to list some examples of how electric light may be used, from “brain surgery” to “night baseball”, however his opinion of this is that “these activities are in some way the ‘content’ of the electric light…” (Mcluhan 9). In this he is correct because electric light does nothing but allow one to execute these activities. He also states that “…the content of any medium is always another medium”. Therefore the content of the electric light used during a night time baseball would be the baseball game; which in itself would also be another medium, or a form of expressing oneself. Mcluhan believes that any content is insignificant and ineffective compared to that of the medium. However this can only be true in some cases. In any artwork from sculpting to painting, the way it is expressed, what type of medium it uses, is the most important part of the artwork. One can paint a nude woman, but it is how she is painted, what type of brushstrokes and what is she painted on will be most important. However, for television, movies and almost all forms of media, content can be equally, if not absolutely vital. Our medium is television. But it will be the content, what is shown, that will be truly significant. Watching a child’s cartoon to watching an adult film or a violent movie will all have different results void of the medium. With this Mcluhan goes on to introduce the theory of “hot” and “cold” media. The vital difference between the two is, one: how intense or how much information is being absorbed at one time by the senses, and two: how much participation or effort must one put into paying attention to the media and absorbing it. An excellent example would be the comparison between a Radio and a Graphic Novel. With a radio one receives an intense amount of information just by listening and nothing else. However with a Graphic novel, not only this one must read, but one must also fill in the blanks between the panels with only the information given by the author, which is usually not a lot. In the end it is both the medium and how “hot” and “cold” the media is that will affect society. If one was to use the radio as a medium and then barrage the public 24/7 and have someone listen to it all the time, then the result will be disastrous. Radio is a hot media meaning to have someone listening to it all the time will result in that person going crazy or “overheat” due to the fact that they have been using only one sense to absorb a vast, intense amount of information. Therefore one must “cool” this person off with a “cold” media such as a book or a graphic novel.

Marie Mazur VIS 70N: M/W In Understanding Media, Marshall Mcluhan assumes the perception that media is “an extension of ourselves”, as if it is common knowledge. He is giving the reader the benefit of the doubt- that we are wise to the notion of what media really is. However, it is one of those ideas that I have always known but never actually acknowledged until I read these chapters. Mcluhan defines to us the reality within “The Medium is the Message”, in that when a message is conveyed we often forget the impact of its physical path along the way. For example, when we watch television we do not simply see a woman’s smiling face, but also flashing lights and semantic background that we are typically not conscious of. Mcluhan states: “the ‘content’ of any medium is always another medium” (8). I understand this to mean- in terms of television- that light as a medium highlights and therefore conveys a message through brightness and darkness; whereas the content (light) and the medium (the camera) go unnoticed; but that is where much of the message lies. The framing of the image, the angle of the camera, and the color saturation- these are things we do not usually acknowledge when we are engrossed in a dramatic plot, but they affect us subliminally by dictating our attention. These concepts are simply the hatchlings of Mcluhans theories in chapter 1, as he goes on to exemplify the same notion of “The Medium is the Message” in terms of technology, art, and typography. He explains how Americans, being such a modern country, have established a society that is “based on the fact of typography and of print culture creating uniformity and continuity” (15). We are “homogenized” because of our foundation on literacy, which leaves no room for other types of intellectuals that learn by hearing or touching. Our society, which is saturated in “typographical cultural bias” (17) is apparently unprepared for coping with electric technology, let alone the digital revolution which Mcluhan had not met when writing this piece. Moving on to hot and cold media, I understand the former to require little or no brain participation and the latter to require a more active or eager participant. This is an oversimplification, especially when considering the analogy of the Charleston and the Twist in Russia in the 1960s. Evidently the Twist is too free spirited and integrated for an industrial-minded country to cope, for it is a hot society and therefore needs hot media, as Mcluhan later explains. In America we are individualistic, which is why we can deal with TV as a cool medium; picking and choosing from a slough of ideas, images, and entertainment to create our conglomerate personalities. Perhaps we do not have the societal cement of oral tradition that ancient countries do, which explains why we strive for success as a single rather than a whole. In closing, I would like to touch upon our “autoamputation” and numbness as a result. Computers are our autoamputated brains, and like Mcluhan stated, they are modifying us to be proficient in Microsoft Word and Excel. Today we cannot likely succeed without understanding the basic principles of a PC or Macintosh. In succeeding I mean making money and therefore becoming blind to the need for global awareness and compassion- this is Mcluhan’s final point in “The Gadget Lover” that really struck home with me. Because we now understand that media is an extension of ourselves, how will we remove the numbness and bring back the tingling needles of sensation into our brains? Art.

In “Understanding Media” Mcluhan disregards current society’s standard measure of media, its content, in favor of viewing media, the pure medium in and of itself, as that which conveys its purpose. His direction is quite conceptual and argues that that which is impacting the greatest scope of influence is not the superficial message of media, but it is the intangible media itself and its consequential impact upon society or individual human patterns and life as a whole wherein lies the truth of its purpose. Thus it is the medium, not the message which can be new and “revolutionary”. Mcluhan seems to be subtly categorizing society without media through the conventions of “primitive” and “tribal” and connotations of “innocence” until it has been fully inundated and permeated by the reaches of media. The scope of the impact of media and its consequences not as a tool but as the convention remains largely unnoticed because, as Mcluhan emphasizes, we do not recognize the infiltration of media because it is simply the medium and the unconscious gaze of society on the glossy image and intrigue of story leaves the power of media a mere afterthought, and its possibility of being the content intangible. Mcluhan interestingly parallels the concept of media itself as the message, that of which is the sole focus, through the drastic shift in art with the advent of the cubist movement which, through its fragmentation of not only the exterior image, but also conveyance of internal expression simultaneously. And thus, the painting is no longer simply the image itself but it is the media through which that image is created, that becomes and integral and deeply important functioning convention that must be considered. Mcluhan also argues that the influence of media is inescapable simply because it is an ever looming presence that becomes so entwined that it is not only fully integrated within society, but it mutually shapes it as well. Mcluhan also delves further into a mutual relationship between society and media in how both shape and influence one another through the concept of “hold” and “cold” media, arguing that the demand or acceptance of either within any given society is wholly dependent upon that society’s current defining circumstances and tendencies. Mcluhan also touches on the universal idea that media is simply the unconscious extension of ourselves.

In “The Medium Is The Message,” the author asserts that because we live in a culture that is “long accustomed to splitting and dividing all things as a means of control” (p.7), the medium is, on the contrary “the message.” The author discusses how any medium is merely in “extension” of the humans that create it, and thus there is a sense of responsibility that both the creator and machine must own. Because every medium yields another medium, change through the generations of mediums is inevitable and will thus reflect the “change of patterns that [the message] introduces into human affairs (p. 8).” This is to say that all forms of media are direct reflections of evolutionary change in humans. “Evolution” is of course a key point because is implies that there is no direct creation happening, simply the occurrence of “adding on” to that which has already been constructed before us. The author describes the phenomenon of putting too much attention on the content of a medium, and letting the content override the “character of the medium itself.” An example of a word lit up with electric light is given; the author claims that the electric light itself (the medium) is not given any attention, whereas the word itself (the “content”) would receive attention. “It is the medium,” the author adds, “that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action” (p.9). The statement “Guns don’t kill people…” is a topic of discussion in the essay. “Our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot” (p.18). To this, the author suggests “any technology could do anything but add itself on to what we already are” (p.9). We must not ignore the medium, because it is the key starting point in every creation or destruction the medium creates. The effect is stronger than the medium of content. In the essay, Napolean is used to illustrate just how powerful the media is: “Three hostile newspapers are more to be feared than a thousand bayonets” (p. 13). Indeed, it is often the news broadcasts of modern media that determine how the public will vote, or how the government will fight a war. However, the author closely examines different “definitions” of media, or, how much participation they require (a “high definition”) medium requires less participation because it is so dense with material (p. 22). So, one must ask, which kind of medium is most dangerous? One that is “cool,” or one that is “hot?” Because a low definition medium requires more participation, there is more room for the audience to actively think about what kind of information is being given to them. However, a high definition medium leaves little room for audience participation because the flood of information leaves little ambiguity about the information. The author makes a distinction between hot and cool mediums: “A cool medium like TV, when really used, demands the involvement in process. The neat tight package is suited to hot media, like radio and gramophone” (p. 31). The distinction between “hot” and “cool” media reflect the kind of audience the media is reaching at any given time period. The decision to include a great deal of information or to leave out information speaks to certain kind of audiences who wish to either draw their own conclusions due to the “mystique” that the medium projects; the author uses an example men preferring to “make passes” at women wearing sunglasses over clear glasses, suggesting that the clear glasses give away too much information (p. 31). The author goes on to talk about how “men become fascinated by any extension of themselves in any material other than themselves” (p. 41). The author is then writes that in order for man to love a reflection of himself, the man must be unaware that it is in fact himself that he is looking at. “All extensions of ourselves… are attempts to hold equilibrium” (p. 42). This is perhaps the reason that media continues to evolve.

The first thing that came to my mind after reading Marshall Mcluhan’s “The medium is the message” was actually one thinking about live human to human communication. He uses many examples of different forms of technology to convey the idea that the means through which “content” is expressed often carries more meaning in of itself than the actual content. I suppose it was sticking with his theme of technology; using typography examples quite a bit, but I think it can be explained very simply using the ideas of face to face communication between people. At least within a single culture of defined social rules and structures, two people talking can convey more with their stance, eye movements, arm positions, vocal tones and fluctuations, stance, and general attitude than the content of what they are speaking; which in itself is a medium according to Mcluhan. But the physical acts by conversing people are the medium through which most of the communication is taking place. Maybe I’m totally off with that idea, but that’s just what came to me. Mcluhan talks on how the electric light impacted the notion that the medium itself could be the message, because it is the medium that “shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action.” But I don’t really see how that works out. A light itself conveys nothing other than its state of being on or off. He uses the example of it being a tool used in brain surgery and nighttime baseball games, but I hardly see how that makes it a medium anymore than the sun is. Frankly, while I respect and admire the thick wording, philosophical ideas, long explanations, and historical references, and this was a good read, I feel the concept of the medium being the message doesn’t need nearly that much space to explain. In his second section of the reading, I had kind of a hard time with his notions of hot and cold media. It started out rather simple and straightforward, but he seemed to go on long, deviating detours before arriving at his point; which I hope I understood properly. Whether a media is considered “hot” or “cold” seemed to first depend on its density of information, but then changed to level of participation in the media, in which a hot medium allows less participation than a cool one. While I understood some of the examples used; such as the introduction of a steel axe as a new medium which drastically changed the society and lifestyles of the native Australian tribes, many of the longer, more drawn out ones went right over my head; even after reading several times. I hope to gain a clearer understanding by reading through other peoples’ posts and in the discussion on Monday.

The article as a whole was interesting enough, in its theories and examples. Mcluhan had some particular ideas which were interesting to think about, which I will dwell on later. To start though, I was a little overwhelmed with the article. The big stipulation I had was that Mcluhan was hard to read because of the round about examples he gave that he felt were relevant to media as a whole. He would speak of something that I felt was out of context then bend it in the direction of the main idea. One example of that form of writing is the relevance of airplanes breaking the sound barrier and how that is significant because the waves of sound passing over the wings are visible. I feel that that is more appropriate for “Popular Science” rather than an article on media, especially the media that we are studying. Our media is the sort that would be seen on television at its highest, “sold out” product while the “lowest” form would be the stuff of artistic film classes and YouTube. In that same train of thought, Mcluhan has an odd metaphor for media in an electric light bulb in his first chapter “The Medium is the Message”, stating that the “electric light is pure information”, and that it is a form of media. I can’t help but feel that that particular thought is trying a little hard to justify that media can be found in the simplest of creations, i.e. the light bulb, in this instance. Light bulbs produce light, they illuminate things, help us read, write, watch TV, etc. They are not, however, a source of information which can be categorized as “media”. There is no information to glean from it at all, to say the least. Media is a source of information, intellectual or otherwise, coming from a source which can be digested through reading, watching or listening. At the very least, the light bulb facilitates these other methods of media, but it is not any sort of source for information. Let’s leave the light bulb alone though. I do agree with Mcluhan that media is an extremely powerful weapon and is in constant civil wars with itself. Even more now, being a good deal after the article had been written. People are extremely susceptible to the undertones and subliminal meanings that media comes with, whether it is intentional or not. With that, the different forms of media war with each other on what the message is the audience will receive. It is ever changing, dependent on technology, world events and the like, yet the constant stream of media will not cease until human kind ceases. In Mcluhan’s second chapter “Media Hot and Cold” I was able to grasp the meaning a little easier, though some of his examples kept me going in circles. The idea of “temperatures” of media I find quite interesting in that it is dependent on the level of participation from the audience. The most interesting example for me came in the form of the Russian issue of “Life”, stating that the Charleston dance was acceptable while the Twist was unacceptable, the Charleston being “hot” while the Twist was deemed “cool”. If this were related to modern music, what would be hot and cool? Would Jazz still be considered a “hot” sort of music? Perhaps it would now be cool while heavy metal was the hot music? Either way, it is interesting how this concept should be applied to modern media in music, TV and arts.

What I did not realize about Marshall Mcluhan’s work until after I had finished the reading was that it was not written recently as I had assumed, but it was written in 1964. The points he makes, and the comparisons he uses are still very true today, even with the advent of numerous new technologies, namely cell phones and the Internet. The main idea that stuck with me from the reading is that it doesn’t matter what we are trying to say with our art, but only the medium we use to create it matters. As someone who is interested in graphic arts, this was a very interesting concept to me. Mcluhan’s idea directly contradicts anything I’ve ever been taught in an art class or attempted to do with art. I think that in some mediums this does make sense, and in others it does not apply as much. When he uses the example of the light bulb as a medium, I think his idea that the medium is the message and not the content does apply. The light bulb was a world-changing invention. The light bulb was the medium for the light, which was the content. Light has existed since the beginning of the world, so this was not what made the light bulb such an important invention. The medium of the light bulb made it so that we could have light anywhere we wanted, when we wanted it, and we did not have to worry about the hazards of carrying a candle everywhere, and also the quality of light was much superior to previous kerosene lamps. In that way, the medium of the light bulb was what sent the message that the world was changing and advancing. In other mediums, such as newspaper or painting, I do not think this is as true. When we read a newspaper, the words that are printed are what speak to us. The fact that it is in a newspaper does lend the articles an air of being true, because they are the news, but that is not the only message that is delivered by articles in a newspaper. And in painting, what is the medium if we do not look at what the picture is of? Even in abstract painting, we still look at the picture and find the meaning that it has for us. The medium does play a role in what we think when we see a painting, but not an integral one. When we go to look at a painting, we know because of the medium that someone created it for people to look at and also to express themselves. The concept of hot and cold media was a little confusing for me at first. The example they used that made it clearest for me was the example of the Twist and the Charleston. The Twist is an example of cool media because it is a more improvised dance, there is more individual expression in it, and it isn’t a completely rigid set of moves. The Charleston is an example of “hot” because there is one right way to do it, and the dancers can’t improvise and put their own mark on it very much. The way I look at hot and cool media is that cool media is more nuanced so you have the opportunity to examine the media and take your own meaning out of it, whereas hot media can have only one meaning and it is forced upon people. Mcluhan says that backward countries are cool because they have less media around them everyday so they have to think for themselves and entertain themselves more than we do. However, he also says that people of the TV age are cool, and people of the past mechanical time were hot. This is because in the TV age, we have more information in general to absorb and base our opinions on, but in the past most information and media was not readily available, therefore one opinion generally was imposed on the masses.

At most, Marshall Mcluhan’s theories on the effects and categorization of the media were interesting. I will even go so far as to say that his ideas were revolutionary, thought-provoking, and well-articulated; if I had to venture out on one more limb, I’d hastily describe his postulates as somewhat worth reading (however, the limb is dangerously close to snapping on this one). After that, I cannot bend any further because one can’t give a man more credit than he deserves. Mcluhan’s eloquence cannot patch over the inconsistencies in his arguments – an argument supported by flawed evidence will always be wrong, no matter how many adjectives you use to prove your case. In the first chapter of Mcluhan’s novel, “The Medium is the Message,” Mcluhan proposes that the “medium” carries more impact than the “content.” (i.e. a newspaper is a “medium” and the articles are its “content” or television is a “medium” and the programs are its “content) He believed that the medium itself was more influential in changing society than the message being delivered. To support his case, Mcluhan parallels his argument to a light bulb – that a light bulb is a medium that has no content, and, yet, influences its environment by providing light in areas that would otherwise be in complete darkness. Furthermore, he states that “content” has minimal, if any, affect. However, I find two major problems in Mcluhan’s argument. First, Mcluhan skews the light bulb theory by merging the light bulb and produced light into a sole entity – the “medium”. He overlooks the possibility of separating the two into different subcategories – analogized, the light bulb is the medium and the produced light is the content. In this revision, the medium becomes worthless without the content – How good is a light bulb (the medium) when it doesn’t produce light (the content)? How entertaining is a television (the medium) when it doesn’t air any programs (the content)? How good is a newspaper (the medium) when it doesn’t print any articles (the content)? In this case, the medium carries no value unless the content is in effect. When we view Mcluhan’s theory from this angle, we see truth in a new light. Secondly, Mcluhan states that “content” has minimal affect in society. For example, there is no plausible difference in magazine advertisements that portray nude or non-nude images because, in the end, it is the medium that causes change. For the sake of argument, let’s assume that McLuhan is correct. Let us assume that Nickelodeon, a children’s’ programming network, would not be adversely affected by the genre or “content” of its programming -- children would respond and behave similarly to cartoons as they would to adult programming because it’s the television that affects an innocent mind, not the actual show. In this case, children who watch Elmo will be affected similarly to those who watch Howard Stern, and have free range in choosing between Spongebob and Jenna Jameson because, in the end, television programs have hardly any significance. Who would have known that it wasn’t the playboy channel that killed the man, it was a stationary, black box. When we snap back into reality (and, for the sake of argument I will put my sarcasm aside) content becomes more than Mcluhan’s belittled description, and carries the potential power to ignite change in human physiology, psychology, and sociology. For example, particular genres of music can stimulate different lobes in the brain and cause the listener to respond differently – certain types of classical songs can stimulate the right portion of the brain and can heighten concentration and the feeling of relaxation, while loud heavy metal can increase heart rate. Thus, human behavior is not necessarily contingent on the music medium, but more specifically on the type or content of the song. We see this theory – content having the ability to change its environment – physically illustrated through Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, the masterminds behind the massacre of thirteen individuals at Columbine High School. When police officers searched Klebold and Harris’s personal quarters they discovered books on how to construct explosives, video games in which the primary premise was to demolish and murder, and home recordings of both experimenting with firearms in a secluded forest. In no way, am I even faintly implying that “How-To” books and Duke Neukem were the reason behind the Columbine shootings. However, I do want to scope in on the content of the books and video games they kept in their rooms – violence becomes an underlying thematic thread. Thus, it wasn’t necessarily the medium that interested Klebold and Harris. It was the violent content that intrigued them and possibly encouraged and solidified their fatal choices. As interesting as Mcluhan’s theories were, there are too many holes in his arguments to take him seriously. His postulates on light bulbs and medium vs. content do not play out in the real world, and remain as an intangible idea. However, I will go so far as to say that his intangible ideas were worth my time (but, the limb is dangerously close to snapping on this one).

Marshall McLuhan states that new technologies exert a gravitational effect on cognition, which in turn affects social organization. He clearly explains that through looking back at specific instances in history we can see the effects of media and how as a new cultural medium this can shift our organization in society. His correlation of how one medium is to another is created from his idea of hot and cold media. McLuhan’s calibration of what determines hot or cold is the level of interaction of the media to the user, viewer and audience. The more active the media communicates to the audience the hotter the media. The more passive the viewer is communicated to (via all the human senses) the colder the media. The concept of hot and cold is used by McLuhan in an example where he states a hot media does not leave so much to be filled in or completed by the audience. Perhaps, this segmentation or space between the viewer and the media leaves more thoughts of contemplation or less control of the message. McLuhan stresses the effects of the hot and cold media and how they interact differently and provide different effects on the user where this effect translates to society. This concept of hot and cold and how the user is effected is explained to the reader by McLuhan as a basic principle that distinguishes a hot medium like radio from a cool one like the telephone, or a hot medium like the movie from a cool one like TV. McLuhan shows how the insertion of hot media in a cool culture or the insertion of cool media in hot culture can change the role of the user. His hierarchy of hot and cold provide a cultural platform to view the effects of various media and how they change society. McLuhan’s strongest example of a hot and cold shift in culture is given with his example of the disruptive impact of a hot technology succeeding a cool one is when he describes from Robert Theobald’s The Rich and the Poor “Australian natives were given steel axes by the missionaries, their culture, based on the stone axe, collapsed.” This powereful example by McLuhan dissects the hot or cold technology as a tool that when shifted, or replaced, can have a powerful change in society. McLuhan not only provides a platform of discourse between his hot and cold media analogies but a solution to how a society should view them both at the same time. He states humor and play towards these polarized media forms of hot and cold create a play that cools off the hot situations of actual life by miming them. McLuhans analogy of electricity to the central nervous system provides a connection to where he states that physiologically, man in the normal use of technology is perpetually modified by it and in turn finds ever new ways of modifying his technology. This creates a system that, like a formula, can be interchanged with hot and cold media via human interaction. McLuhan explains that man becomes the sex organs of the machine world, as the bee of the plant world, enabling it to evolve ever new forms. This inspection of technology as a media not only establishes a though provoking formula of media exchange in society, but McLuhans thoughts engage the concept of finding the tool to either insert or enchange from society to provide a shift.

KAWalsh I find McLuhan’s writing both fascinating and frustrating, probably due to his extensive literary and philosophical references. But at the same time reading his work decades after it was written, it is clear he had an prophetic understanding of what was occurring in world culture and where it was leading. Ever since technology development began to pick up speed in the industrial revolution there has been disagreement over its relative benefits to various groups and humanity in general. But it is always a discussion wherein we assume we have some control over the development and use of technology. McLuhan points out that we really have no choice about it; we can’t choose to not be involved. His assertion is that “ our conventional response to all media, namely that it is how they are used that counts, is the numb stance of the technological idiot.” I think what he is trying to show us is that understanding how technology works is not at all equivalent with understanding its real power and the way it changes the world. To live in a technological culture is to participate, we can ignore it but it still shapes us and causes us to react. He writes : “The effects of technology do not occur at the level of opinions or concepts, but alter sense ratios or patterns of perception steadily and without resistance”. Interestingly he cites the serious artist as “the only person able to encounter technology with impunity, just because he is an expert aware of the changes in sense perception.’ Also interesting is the way he sees the effects of technology as it evolves historically. He discriminates between mediums that cause de-tribalizing or re-tribalizing of cultures, showing that technological advancement has opposing influences depending on the “hot or cold” nature of the medium (hot indicating a high degree of stimulation to at least one of the senses) and the capability of the specific culture to respond to it. The studied use of media today by advertisers and politicians demonstrates the veracity of his assertion that “concern with effect rather than meaning is a basic change of our electric time.” Another particularly interesting passage, which he attributes to Margaret Meade, resonates strongly in the digital age: “There are too many complaints about society having to move too fast to keep up with the machine. There is great advantage in moving fast if you move completely, if social, educational, and recreational changes keep pace.” The pace of this change has no doubt accelerated beyond what anyone in the “60s could have imagined, and the movement has not been complete nor has it reached everyone, even within our own country . Because of the world-wide connectivity of our current technology we have a global debate today, and although many places in the world are able to participate in the exchange of images and information, there are large sections of the world population who are not able to participate socially, educationally or recreationally, dividing the world into technological classes. This could lead to more of the “ intellectual mistakes” McLuhan refers to in the quote from J.U. Nef: “The total wars of our time have been the result of a series of intellectual mistakes…”.

Find additional resources on Mcluhan here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan

For those of you having trouble with this reading please try to get your response posted sooner rather than later. I will meet one on one during my office hours which are Tues 3-4pm. Until then please try to find help online and post specific questions you have here in advance of our discussion. With a reading like this it is important to make inroads early and not leave everything up until the last minute. I've probably read this text 10 or more times and it is still challenging in many ways. If we all work at it we will be able to have a quality discussion Monday.