« Why would I leave a comment on my own blog? | Main | I went Geocaching »
June 22, 2005
Everything Bad is Good For You
I finished a book this evening, one which shared the title of this entry. I found it quite interesting. A number of people at my school study the growing science of New Media, which sounds somewhat interesting to me, but is something I have never sat down and tried to think about too deeply. This book gave me a good background into the field, and did a good job of tying modern cognitive science into the lessons.
In Everything Bad is Good For You, Steven Johnson argues against the notion that the technological staples of today's popular culture (Television, Film, Video Games, and the Internet) are not dumbing-down the culture. On the contrary, these media train newer, better cognitive abilities. Johnson argues that as time passes, pop culture is subjected to increasingly complex programming, which leads to greater intelligence, not less.
I found many of the points made in the book to be debatable, but that does not mean that I disagree with Johnson. I believe that on the whole, today's media is much more complex than that of yesteryear. The comedy of "I Love Lucy" doesn't stand a chance when compared with that of "Seinfeld." Sure, they're both funny, but I can watch Seinfeld over and over and still laugh, while an episode of Lucy is bound to get boring after the second viewing. That's just one example of the increasing complexity.
I also agree with Johnson's sentiments that giving respect to today's media does not give us license to forget the old favorites. So maybe TV is good for us, but that doesn't mean reading should go out the window. Book reading is still vital, and we must instill this belief in our culture before we all get too used to the choppy flow of hypertext.
I recommend this book. It's a relatively fast read, and it relates to your life, guaranteed. It is also written in plain English, a considerable feat for such a heavy topic. I'll leave you with the book's conclusion:
The cultural race to the bottom is a myth; we do not live in a fallen state of cheap pleasures that pale beside the intellectual riches of yesterday. And we are not innate slackers, drawn inexorably to the least offensive and least complicated entertainment available. All around us the world of mass entertainment grows more demanding and sophisticated, and our brains happily gravitate to that newfound complexity. And by gravitating,they make the effect more pronounced. Dumbing down is not the natural state of popular culture over time - quite the opposite. The great unsung story of our culture today is how many welcome trends are going up.
Posted at June 22, 2005 10:40 PM
Comments
I'd recommend reading some McLuhan, or better yet, some analyses of McLuhan's new media theory if you want more perspective on new media. Even though his writings are extremely old by new media standards (+40 years), they are eerily relevant to new forms of media content. I'd especially recommend a book called "McLuhan Hot and Cold" which discusses the differences in implicit/explicit media representation and proliferation. I will try to dig it up for you next time we're in town.
Posted by: Justin at June 23, 2005 09:21 AM
Johnson is fun and engaging, but I would still argue that he is "pop" new media. More serious works on new media include McLuhan, as Justin suggested, but more recently, Lev Manovich's "Language of New Media" is one of the best resources on new media; N. Katherine Hayles' "How We Became Posthuman" is another good one; also worthy of note is George Landow's "Hypertext 2.0"; there's also a couple nice anthologies: "Reading Digital Culture" (Trend, ed.) and "New Media Reader" (Wardrip-Fruin, ed.).
It is interesting you use the phrase "growing science of new media," since most people who are part of the current discourse on new media are not scientific at all, but rather are cultural critics enmeshed in an anti-rationalistic, interpretive tradition, which derives from 20th century continental philosophy (Heidegger, Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, etc.). I don't endorse this anti-rationalism, btw; neither do I rejects its critiques. Actually, I believe that if we are going to make headway with new media--and we must--we need to try to break down divisions between scientific rationalism and continental interpretive criticism. Whether this interdisciplinary (and inter-paradigmatic) study of new media can be called a "science," however, is questionable.
To give credit where it is due, I think Johnson tries hard to leverage the strengths of both positions, and in that sense, he is innovative and rewarding. But his work lacks academic rigor (he does not write academic books, so this is not intended as a criticism), but I would caution you against taking him as an authority in the field of new media, because much richer work is out there. And of course, I think you know one professor who would love to talk to you more about new media, but the identity of this hockey-playing prof shall not be revealed here....
Josh note: It's easy to see that Johnson's New Media is of the 'pop' persuasion. His Neuroscience is the same way...clear enough so someone with no background can understand it, yet not so deep that one can really understand what is going on. There's definitely a time and place for this style of writing. I'll continue pondering New Media, as soon as I figure out which dang professor wrote the note... ;-)
Posted by: allecto at June 23, 2005 10:54 PM