At St. Joe’s, we’ve been busy building a new kind of Communication Studies department.
With talented faculty, a supportive administration, and motivated students – we’ve turned our little start-up into a thriving digital media studies outpost, with plans to hire every year into the foreseeable future.
This season we are hiring our chair.
This person will have the extraordinary opportunity to build something great.
We are looking for someone who shares our vision – someone who wants to make a difference.
Our chair will not only lead a passionate group of thinkers and doers into the future, but will help to extend our work into the community of Philadelphia, fostering innovation and positive social change.
If this sounds interesting, we would love to hear to you.
Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin. Remediation: Understanding New Media. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1999.
In this classic Bolter and Richard Grusin develop a theory of mediation for the digital age that challenges the assumption that new media needs a new set of aesthetic and cultural principles. They argue instead that new (visual) media achieve their cultural significance by reusing and refashioning earlier “new” media, such as perspectival painting, photography, cinema, and television. Their theory of remediaton recalls that earlier media have also refashioned one another: photography remediated painting, film remediated stage production and photography, etc.
The authors define medium as “that which remediates” (19) and claim that all media work by remediating–or translating, reshaping, refashioning and reforming other media in both form and content. The authors claim that new media will never be new, that we will not invent a new set of aesthetic and cultural principles to negotiate it. Instead, like its precursors, “digital media can never reach this state of transcendence, but will instead function in a constant dialectic with earlier media, precisely as each earlier medium functioned when it was introduced” (50). Here the authors claim that what is new about new media lies in their particular strategies for remediating television, film, photography, and painting” (Bolter 50). Bolter and Grusin state “In collage and photomontage as in hypermedia, to create is to rearrange existing forms” (p. 39). Consequently, to bring something new into existence–to create–is to rearrange forms/media which already exist. Notably, Lev Manovich takes up Bolter and Grusin’s idea of remediation but also extends their notions of what the aesthetic is to new media.
Kress, Gunther. “Gains and Losses: New Forms of Texts, Knowledge, and Learning.” Computers and Composition 22.1 (2005): 5-22.
In this article, Gunther Kress examines the affordances and the limitations of moving from a primarily print-centric culture to an image-centric culture. Kress relies on social semiotic theory to account for meaning-making. Kress says: “Words are (relatively) empty entities-in a semiotic account they are signifiers to be filled with meaning rather than signs full of meaning, and the task of the reader is to fill these relatively vacant entities with her or his meaning. This is the task we call interpretation, namely interpreting what sign the writer may have intended to make with this signifier” (Kress, 2005, 7) The point here, and elsewhere in his examples is that (in contrast to even a decade ago) meaning is now designed by the experiencer /interpreter/ reader as much as by the writer/creator. Importantly, as the once dominant modes of speech and writing are pushed to a more marginal position, and are being replaced by image and more cinematic means of representation, practices of reading and writing are changing. As Kress claims: “Reading has to be rethought given that the commonsense of what reading is was developed in the era of unquestioned dominance of writing, in constellation with the unquestioned dominance of the medium of the book” (Kress 17). As a sign of the times, Kress foresees that “Reading as taking meaning and making meaning from many sources of information, from many sign-systems, will become the new common sense” (Kress 17). This is a vastly different notion of reading than that of “decoding” — what has been the dominant model. Kress states that “The new constellation of image and screen–where screen, the contemporary canvas, is dominated by the logic of the image–means that the practices of reading becoming dominant are the the practices derived from the engagement with the image and/or depiction in which the reader designs the meaning from materials made available on the screen–and by transference back to the traditional media–on the new kinds of pages, which are now also organized on these principles and read in line with them” (Kress 18). Obviously, Kress’ theory of the “new reading” has an aesthetic component. The new “meaning making and meaning taking” has an aesthetic component. He hints at this but doesn’t make it explicit until the last sentence…
I have to ask: why does the theory of the “designs of meaning” have to be contained within the field of new media/digital environments? Don’t actors design meaning from all the materials made available to them in the world (not just the screen)? Commonsense would say they do. Kress states that we “cannot continue with existing theories of meaning given the facts of the changes in the social, economic, and cultural domain. At the moment, our theories come from the era dominated by notions of conventions and competence, whereas we need theories apt for an era of radical instability” (Kress, 2005, 20). As we have firmly acknowledged a crisis of stable representation–Kress claims that “we need the notion of design, which says: In this social and cultural environment, with these demands for these materials, for that audience, with these resources, and given these interests of mine, what is the design that meets these requirements? Design focuses forward; it assumes that resources are never entirely apt but will need to be transformed in relation to all the contingencies of this environment now and the demands made….(Kress, 2005, 20). Finally, in the last sentence of this article, Kress mentions the aesthetic. He states:
“And if we took our cue not from conventionally established authority but, equipped with necessary aesthetic and ethical navigational aids, we were to establish authority and at times even knowledge for ourselves, would that not be a preferable position?” (Kress 21).
This seems like an important point, from an important theorist. It seems important to situate my argument within this perceived need: developing a better understanding of multimodal, multifaced meaning-making. To develop a better way to “navigate” aesthetic meaning-making (writing, reading, experiencing).