Comments on: Everything Bad is Good For You http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/170 Just Another California Kid out to Get Himself Some Glory Thu, 28 Aug 2008 20:38:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: allecto http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/170#comment-115 allecto Fri, 24 Jun 2005 04:54:26 +0000 http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/?p=170#comment-115 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 <i>really</i> 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... ;-) 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… ;-)

]]> By: Justin http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/archives/170#comment-114 Justin Thu, 23 Jun 2005 15:21:59 +0000 http://josh.ev9.org/weblog/?p=170#comment-114 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. 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.

]]>