www.nettime.org
Nettime mailing list archives

<nettime> The medium is not the message (lecture to students)
Florian Cramer on Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:00:24 +0100 (CET)


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

<nettime> The medium is not the message (lecture to students)


[This September, the media department of the Universiteit van
Amsterdam invited me to give the graduation speech for its Masters
students of New Media. I had been asked to address the future of new
media studies in my lecture, which was a difficult task since I had
never studied or taught new media studies. I hope that I'm not boring
Nettime by posting the manuscript here. -Florian]

# The Medium is Not the Message #
## On the future of new media studies ##

Dear graduates,

Let me make a wild guess: Perhaps it has become more difficult for you to
say what media are - and what media studies are - than a few years ago
when you began to study them. A paradox of "media" is that, in our time,
they seem to be everywhere at first glance yet nowhere when it comes to
critical study. Every person on the street would agree that our everyday
life is permeated by electronic media, the Internet, mobile phones,
electronic gadgets. Everyone is aware of their economic impact. Even
the link between these communication technologies to cultural and social
movements is not esoteric anymore, in the year after WikiLeaks and two
days after the Pirate Party won nine percent at the state elections in
Berlin. If we look at university media studies, however, we see that only
few departments exist and that of those few, most are journalism or film
studies departments at their core. You could even philosophically debunk
and dismiss the notion of "media" itself, with its legacy of 19th century
physics and outmoded concept of the ether. What exactly is a medium,
as something supposedly in between a sender and a receiver, if senders
and receivers are nowadays routinely included in the concept of "media"?

If you have faced these issues in your studies, you experienced first
hand that the notion of media is not set in stone, but under a constant
semantic shift. The implication of this is quite positive: Since "media"
are always something in the making, and even something contested, you
can (and inevitably have to be) their makers, and help giving them the
meaning you find important. The best thing that can be said of media
studies is that they carry less idealist baggage than the historically
more established humanities. In their best manifestations, media studies
have blurred or even removed the boundaries between theory and practice.
This is even true for the so-called media theory. Benjamin, McLuhan,
Enzensberger, Baudrillard, Haraway, Kittler, Manovich, Hayles - if we
drop some text book names of more or less canonical media theoreticians,
we see that their works are bastards: speculative, controversial, fringe
and of rather dubious reputation within the larger humanities, even
within media studies themselves. None of them even had media study
degrees like you have. As far as I know, most of your professors here
don't have them either. (Neither do I have any such degree, by the
way.)

Media studies are full of such paradoxes. Perhaps the most famous
one is the sentence that institutionalized media studies, McLuhan's
"the medium is the message". If you look at it closely, then this
statement is a performative contradiction much like the liar's paradox:
It uses the medium of language (or of print, here we already get into the
intricacies of properly identifying a medium) to formulate a message that
transcends that medium. Or, in other words: if the medium is the message,
then the sentence that "the medium is the message" is an exception to
that statement.

McLuhan's historical pretext for this Zen-like and often misunderstood
statement were the modern arts of the 20th century. In abstract painting,
painting no longer depicts something else, but is pure painting, so the
medium is the message. The same is true for sound poetry and for a text
that was McLuhan's major inspiration, James Joyce's novel "Finnegans
Wake" whose language is above all about language. But this ultimately
means that in McLuhan's media theory, the underlying message were not
mass media but the modern arts.

I see an upside and downside to this theory. The problematic side is how
l'art pour l'art got transformed into a paradigm of communication media:
we watch TV in order to watch TV (not news, sports, drama). The "global
village" that McLuhan proclaimed had, in my reading, nothing to do with
today's Internet and community media activism, it was even the opposite
- the kind of community created by people around the globe sitting
in front of TV and watching the Apollo moon landing. It was a deeply
conservative vision of new media. Just at this time, we witness how,
in the Netherlands and elsewhere, the sector of new media arts is being
scrapped and redefined as "creative industries". The same is happening in
higher education. Those who deplore this should however not forget that
this is just what McLuhan did in the 1960s: He was the theoretician and
paid counseling guru of the creative industries of his time. He taught
its executives how to learn from the modern arts. His "global village"
was not a critical but a commercial vision for tv networks. A lot of
media theory has been either pro-establishment or uncritical, but often
in very idiosyncratic ways: If we think how Baudrillard and Enzensberger
turned against their earlier Marxism or how Kittler and Sloterdijk just
recently courted the German yellow press publisher Hubert Burda.

The subtext underneath these strange alliances is that media studies
are the humanities discipline with the broadest impact outside its own
culture. While the position of an English professor studying Shakespeare
is comparatively safe and uncontroversial (even given the precarious state
of the humanities), it is not of immediate interest to any political
or economical party (even if it is political such as the Shakespeare
philology of Stephen Greenblatt). Media studies, on the other hand, has a
more widely recognized social urgency. Policy makers and industry leaders
expect media studies and media arts to deliver innovative visions. (This
is the reason why my own job has now been changed from teaching new media
to art students to research and development for the creative industries
in the Rotterdam region.) Prominent media theorists have often been
to seduced into lucrative second jobs as media industry consultants and
water down their critical distance - a problem even more rampant in the
contemporary visual arts where often the same people work as curators,
critics and consultants for private collectors.

For me, the performativity of media theory became visible after the
dotcom crash in the early 2000s. Not only did Internet companies crash in
America and pretty much everywhere in Western Europe. In my home country,
there was also the "stupid German money" bubble, investment money that
financed Hollywood B movies like "Driven" (with Sylvester Stallone) and
A movies like "Gangs of New York" (by Martin Scorsese). This was only
possible thanks to German government tax cut programs for investment
into new media. Contrary to the Anglo-American notion of new media,
the German term encompasses all electricity-driven media and thus also
radio, tv and film. This difference in terminology was powerful enough
to offset a few billions on the world financial markets. In the light
of the financial system crisis, we can only wonder what other seemingly
abstract theories created, and destroyed, market value.

The upside of this is that media studies is not on a safe ground, but
risky - not just in a metaphorical, wannabe sense. Aside from this
systemic aspect, there is also an individualist dimension. McLuhan
institutionalized media studies as a discipline driven by passions,
underground passions that never matched nominal research subject. In
McLuhan's case, avant-garde arts, for others: politics, sexuality, money,
too, to name a few. In all these cases, the medium is not actually the
message. What's more, media have been and continue to be designed and
tweaked to these political, sexual, economic ends. If I had the time to
have a seminar with you, and not just a traditional lecture, my question
to each of you would be: What is _your_ passion? How do you channel it
into your media practice and theory? What drives you into a field where
most of you will not have clearly predefined jobs (such as a literature
graduate becoming a publisher's editor) but where you will have to define
your own profession?

I am not advocating an ideology or fetish of the "new" in "new media".
I am currently working in a project with third year Bachelor students
who were born in 1990 and for whom the term "new media" makes no sense
anymore. More than that, it's obvious that the real "new media" (in the
sense of contemporary, edgy, passion-driven means of communication)
these days are not digital, but analog: zines, artists' books, Super
8 films and analog photography, cassette tapes (and vinyl records to a
lesser degree). They are not merely embraced in a nostalgic retro trend,
but as truly self-made media whose production and social sharing escapes
the control of Google, Apple and Facebook - and in this sense, they are
the new 'new media'.

If this describes the practice, what does it mean for new media studies as
a critical discipline? With the exception of publications like JunkJet
or BLIK (from Utrecht): What are the zines, what is the Super 8 of
new media studies, metaphorically speaking? I consider this important
because those media that were new ten or twenty years ago have become so
conventional that they invite corresponding conventionality in criticism
and scholarship.

As two paradigmatic examples, I would like to choose Apple and Wikileaks,
the most successful computer and digital lifestyle company versus the
Internet project that made the biggest headlines last year. On the
surface, they couldn't be more different: Here the most valuable company
of the world that operates top-down and sells products, here a grassroots,
non-commercial activist project. But both of them are quite similar in
their reviving of classical notions of media. Apple's business model
has always been to merge media and product design: software and hardware
that become one organic whole. The iPhone and iPad have perfected this as
empty slates where each touchscreen app running full screen pretends to be
its own medium: a camera, a map, etc. Since those media - including iTunes
music and films - have been made tangible single products again, you can
sell them as products, like in the 20th century. That also means that
all classical categories of media criticism can safely remain in place.

Apple's business model and media concept is easy to understand while
Google's business model of media as free networked services financed
through a hidden underlying layer of commercial services is much
more difficult to penetrate. Google and Facebook, however, seem to be
the only companies left who can run this "new economy" business model
successfully, a model that can, as it seems, be profitably run only by
mono- or duopolies. This doesn't invalid Yann Moulier Boutang's
diagnosis of "cognitive capitalism" (which he presented at the Societies
of the Query conference here in Amsterdam), but relativizes it. I dare
to predict that the programs of "knowledge economies" or "creative
economies" will end up having a similar fate. Instead of a pure service
economy with neo-colonially outsourced fabrication, there will hopefully
be a return to an economy that will locally reintegrate intellectual
labor and physical production.

To come back to my second example: WikiLeaks is more like Apple in the
sense that it operates within a classical media paradigm, the realm of
whistleblowing and mass media political journalism. For those who have
seen media studies as merely a synonym of journalism studies, WikiLeaks
(next to online journalism) is the godsend Internet phenomenon that
fits that paradigm, and requires almost no methodological updates of
mass media studies scholarship.

I have been in discussions with Geert Lovink that new media studies
seem to be disappearing as a discipline of its own, and swallowed by
the social sciences and cultural studies. Or perhaps they are turning
again into somewhat boring journalism and communication studies. You,
the graduates of this department, can change this state of affairs. Or
you make the same choice made by most people working in the media field
today: go into a different field of work and research to creatively
apply your expertise and mindset there, like the Pirate Party is currently
trying to do in politics.

So when the UvA asked me for a guest lecture on "The Future of New Media
Studies", I was not sure whether I was the right person to defend it. On
top of not having a degree in media studies, I have never had a job in
this discipline, but taught in a comparative literature department, then
in an art school and now in a polytechnic. If the value of media theory
and media studies has been, historically, to foster experimental thinking
and experimental humanities, from Walter Benjamin to Wendy Chun, then
the disciplinary label is of rather secondary importance. When I studied
experimental humanities in the late 1980s, it was called Comparative
Literature, when I went to the USA as an exchange student in the early
90s, it had become Cultural Studies, and by the early 2000s, it was new
media studies. My concern at this point is that the new name will be
Creative Industries.

Since part of my work is for the arts, it has been my experience that
"new media" is best used as an umbrella to fit practices that misfit
established disciplines. Everyone pretends to love interdisciplinarity,
but once you actually try to get a job or some project funding, you
will see that this far from the reality. From 2007 to 2009, I was
one of four jury members for net art subsidies in Vienna, a city that
still generously supports this area of artistic production and cultural
activism. Again and again, we ended up subsidizing projects that were not
strictly Internet art or activism, but for example film installations
or sound art festivals, never mind the fact that separate city funds
for film and music did exist. But the music fund would not support
anything that was not a concert, and the film fund would not support
anything that wasn't a theatrical screening. If you laugh and dismiss
this as conservative Austrian politics, then you should know that it's
almost the same in this innovation-loving country. For the same reason,
an experimental music institute like STEIM in Amsterdam and an anarchist
music/film/performance/hacklab venue like WORM in Rotterdam were put
into the "e-culture" sector of Dutch arts funding, and will therefore
be forced to be "Creative Industries" in the future.

Let me stay with moving images for a little while. In former times,
when film was synonymous with new media, experimental film and video were
synonymous with media art. We not only see it in the strong film heritage
of media studies, up to Lev Manovich's "Language of New Media" in its
reliance on Dziga Vertov. In the arts, an institute like Montevideo/NiMK
is still a video art archive at its heart. What I have been witnessing in
my own work, for example in conferences that we organized in Rotterdam,
is how film culture has become conservative in the literal sense of being
mostly concerned with its self-preservation. While experimental films
in the 1960s such as Wilhelm and Birgit Hein's "Rohfilm" exposed the
materiality of the celluloid in order to destroy the dream factory of
the mass medium, contemporary experimental film exposes the very same
materiality - sprockets, grain, dust, edge lettering - as a nostalgic
celebration of an analog medium that is about to disappear. (Just follow
the respective discussions on analog versus digital on the "Frameworks"
mailing list.) Micro cinema networks like Kino Climates see themselves
as preservers of film and cinema culture. In its worst manifestations,
contemporary artists books have become a graphic design genre, taught
at schools like Werkplaats Typografie, celebrating the materiality of
the paper book.

This brings us back to McLuhan and the medium as the message: It is
a sure sign of a dead medium when a medium is fetishized for its own
sake. Therefore, 20th century abstract painting was not a good model
for media theory. When books are about "book culture", then they are
dead. When films are about "film culture" and film theaters about
"film theater culture", they are dead, when vinyl records are about
"vinyl culture", then they're just zombies, zombie films are dead since
they got co-opted into "b movie culture", etc. Zines died in the 1990s
when they became swallowed into the encyclopedic "zine culture" books
by Factsheet Five and Re/search, and did not became alive again until
they reinvented themselves as informal, ephemeral media.

Or, to express it in positive terms: A medium is alive as long as it can
be quick and dirty. Wilhelm and Birgit Hein's "Rohfilm" was such a dirty
film. Therefore, it was only logical for the two filmmakers to proceed
into the realms of sexuality and pornography in their later work. (I
met Wilhelm Hein this weekend, so I am still under the impression.) So
let's once more radicalize the hypothesis: A medium is alive as long
as it is being used for pornographic ends. This gives us pretty clear
indications about the respective booms and busts of print, VHS video and
DVDs, for example. Cinema is rather dead since there are no more porn
cinemas. Musea, it conversely follows, are not dead media because there
is still a thriving sex museum in the near neighborhood of this institute.

I am mentioning these trivia because I would like to encourage you to walk
off the beaten paths (to quote the name of Wilhelm Hein's and Annette
Frick's current zine, "Jenseits der Trampelpfade") and beware of false
trust in expertise. One example: It took me personally a long time to
see that the foundations of what I had studied as structuralist literary
theory were entirely speculative, and often based on false scientism. So
it seems to me as if the title of this lecture, "The Future of New Media
Studies", is blatantly irrelevant to you because it is not interesting
what media studies will be, but what _you_ will do and whether it will
be interesting. Whether this practice will still be called "new media
studies" is of secondary importance. Often enough, disciplinary specialism
has just been a token of the emperor's new clothes. For example, I am
almost sure that hardly any new media studies professor actually knows
the technically correct definition of "analog" and "digital". If you
need a proof, just take the popular term "Digital Humanities". It would
not exist, except as an embarrassment, if the scholars gathering around
it knew more than just the colloquial notion of "digital".

When I was a teenager in the West-Berlin of the 1980s, the most vital
subcultural current were the self-acclaimed "genius dilettantes" which
included the bands Die Tödliche Doris and Einstürzende Neubauten. I
sympathize with the dilettantes but less so with the romanticist legacy
of the "genius". For experimental humanities, and whatever future of new
media studies under whatever name, I would like to modify this term into
another paradox, the "dilettante expert". Expertise is the classical
foundation of all geekdom, whether it is encyclopedic knowledge of
Shakespeare, of the Star Trek universe or the registers of an 8-bit
controller. Dilettantism is the unavoidable condition of drawing the
bigger picture. It can end up badly like with the pseudo-mathematics and
pseudoscience in the books of Lacan, Kristeva, Baudrillard and Deleuze
debunked by Sokal and Bricmont, especially to the extent that some of
their discourse - Lacan's in particular - lacked doubt and humbleness.

Sokal and Bricmont published "Intellectual Imposters" in 1997.
Retrospectively, it seems to have marked an end of speculative cultural
studies and media theory, except for shrinking niches in the contemporary
arts and in political activism. And deservedly so, I would say, because
you could see the grand media theorists shutting up very quickly when
the new media technologies became a reality and you could no longer get
away with theorizing about "virtual reality" while not being able to
operate your own laptop. (For a certain period from roughly 1997 to
2007, this was the running gag of new media studies conferences.) You
are among the first generations of people with postgraduate degrees in
media studies who actually, pardon my French, know their shit. You are
experts enough to permit yourself some dilettantism again and dare to
become universalists. If this is your ambition, then my only message
would be: Don't take the medium for the message, and don't take media
studies for the message either.


#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime>  is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime {AT} kein.org