4 ms·

Fascinating response. I think you're dead on the money. Extremely pertinent remarks about the cost of art and literature in days gone by. What YouTube does, th

Fascinating response. I think you're dead on the money. Extremely pertinent remarks about the cost of art and literature in days gone by. What YouTube does, therefore, is allow people to dabble, it makes it easy to upload content and a video format whereas before you'd somehow need to work your way into tv or film assuming that industry was located near you. Now all you need is a decent net connection, a bit of talent, a bit of a work ethic, and you can make a go of it. Will you succeed? Hell, probably no–but maybe you'll be more towards the lucrative end of the power law distribution. But yes, for every PewDiePie there are tens of thousand of also rans. Look Ma! I've got global reach. But people's attention span is finite and their interests are limited and the way they find out about stuff obeys certain rules. Because of this we get that odd creature, fame. I think that digital technology and internet and communications technologies have lowered the barriers into the arts and also to consume art. I do fundamentally believe that. That has to be a good thing, doesn't it? But that doesn't mean that art in the digital medium is going to buck social laws. Could you tell me is there any one or two books I should be reading to glean more of the same information you have provided?

dredmorbius 9y ago
Of your last question: not a short list, though I did put together, tongue firmly in cheek, "Media, Advertising, Sustainability, Externalities, and Impacts: A light reading list" this past December after a similar request: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_advertising_sustainability_externalities/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_a... That should give you a basis for making some initial cuts. The problem is, or rather, problems are: 1. I'm still catching up on the media / social-elements-of-information field, and have only been reading it in depth for slightly over a year (though I've had quite some years of general awareness). Which means that this list itself is somewhat aspirational (though I've at least taken a good look through most of the references cited). 2. What I've described above is a synthesis from a bunch of sources. I'm not claiming it's unique, mind, only noting that I can't really point you at some specific book and say "here, read this for that". 3. I'm coming to suspect the media field itself is not of one, or even some low-n number of minds, about major elements of these matters. I think Tim Wu's Attention Merchants should get at much of the focus / diversity / attention element. I've found Robert McChesney particularly compelling, and his Communication Revolution a strong overview of recent (past 20-40 years) developments in the field, particularly from a political-economic perspective. Alvin Toffler's Future Shock digs into some of the elements of attention and information overload. It's a bit too popular itself, but should point to more robust literature. Herbert Simon in particular. Hope that helps.
- igravious 9y ago
  Certainly does. Here is where I overlap with you. I've watched the documentary version of manufacturing consent but not read the book. (Don't tell anyone.) I watched The Century of the Self and Hypernormalisation plus a couple of others by Curtis. McLuhan is on my radar but I've never done a deep dive though of course I'm aware of him. I've read The Master Switch by Wu but not Attention Merchants, this man obviously is someone to keep an eye on. So that leaves McChesney and Toffler. They are now on my radar, thank you. Under general media scholars you mention: H.L. Mencken, I.F. Stone, and perhaps Walter Lippmann and John Dewey. I thought Mencken a critic, Dewey a pragmatist–Rorty rates Dewey very highly, Lippmann I seem to recall to coming across…, Stone, don't think so. Interesting list. And if I may be so bold. Have you considered The Revolt of the Masses by Ortega y Gasset? A prescient work. Somewhat more obscure is The Reality of the Mass Media by Niklas Luhmann, Curtis mentions nearly every cyberneticist and cybernetic theorist bar Luhmann, probably for good reason come to think of it. New media theorists: Walter Benjamin obviously for his The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (but maybe others?), The Language of New Media by Lev Manovich, and finally anything by Wendy Hui Kyong Chun (Wendy Chun). I gather that media-philosophie is an actual research programme in German-land whereas here we'd call it media studies or communication studies or new media studies and it's looked down upon to the same extent as cultural studies programmes are or courses on semiotics. I'd like to see media-philosophy (what you use to communicate your message) become an actual branch of philosophy like aesthetics/rhetoric (how you communicate your message). It's been stimulating, ciao!
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    Thanks for the suggestions, they're new to me. Again, I am not proficient here, just ambitious. The Revolt of the Masses by Ortega y Gasset is at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/TheRevoltOfTheMassesJoseOrtegaYGasset https://archive.org/details/TheRevoltOfTheMassesJoseOrtegaYG... More to follow.
  - dredmorbius 9y ago
    A few more thoughts: I.F. Stone, H.L. Mencken, and others (see particularly George Seldes) are far more practitioners than theorists, but they've had a significant mark on theory and make many great observations. Mencken's "Brayard vs. Lionheart" (I believe that's mentioned in my reading list) is especially apt, and is short to boot. It describes a large element of the information-theoretic component (though Mencken of course doesn't call it that) through his Gresham's Law reference and dynamic. Thanks for Gasset, Luhmann, Benjamin, and Chun, as I don't think I've previously run across them. Added to the already imposing book-mountain.

dredmorbius 9y ago

Of your last question: not a short list, though I did put together, tongue firmly in cheek, "Media, Advertising, Sustainability, Externalities, and Impacts: A light reading list" this past December after a similar request: https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_advertising_sustainability_externalities/ https://www.reddit.com/r/dredmorbius/comments/7k7l4m/media_a... That should give you a basis for making some initial cuts. The problem is, or rather, problems are: 1. I'm still catching up on the media / social-elements-of-information field, and have only been reading it in depth for slightly over a year (though I've had quite some years of general awareness). Which means that this list itself is somewhat aspirational (though I've at least taken a good look through most of the references cited). 2. What I've described above is a synthesis from a bunch of sources. I'm not claiming it's unique, mind, only noting that I can't really point you at some specific book and say "here, read this for that". 3. I'm coming to suspect the media field itself is not of one, or even some low-n number of minds, about major elements of these matters. I think Tim Wu's Attention Merchants should get at much of the focus / diversity / attention element. I've found Robert McChesney particularly compelling, and his Communication Revolution a strong overview of recent (past 20-40 years) developments in the field, particularly from a political-economic perspective. Alvin Toffler's Future Shock digs into some of the elements of attention and information overload. It's a bit too popular itself, but should point to more robust literature. Herbert Simon in particular. Hope that helps.

igravious 9y ago
Certainly does. Here is where I overlap with you. I've watched the documentary version of manufacturing consent but not read the book. (Don't tell anyone.) I watched The Century of the Self and Hypernormalisation plus a couple of others by Curtis. McLuhan is on my radar but I've never done a deep dive though of course I'm aware of him. I've read The Master Switch by Wu but not Attention Merchants, this man obviously is someone to keep an eye on. So that leaves McChesney and Toffler. They are now on my radar, thank you. Under general media scholars you mention: H.L. Mencken, I.F. Stone, and perhaps Walter Lippmann and John Dewey. I thought Mencken a critic, Dewey a pragmatist–Rorty rates Dewey very highly, Lippmann I seem to recall to coming across…, Stone, don't think so. Interesting list. And if I may be so bold. Have you considered The Revolt of the Masses by Ortega y Gasset? A prescient work. Somewhat more obscure is The Reality of the Mass Media by Niklas Luhmann, Curtis mentions nearly every cyberneticist and cybernetic theorist bar Luhmann, probably for good reason come to think of it. New media theorists: Walter Benjamin obviously for his The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction (but maybe others?), The Language of New Media by Lev Manovich, and finally anything by Wendy Hui Kyong Chun (Wendy Chun). I gather that media-philosophie is an actual research programme in German-land whereas here we'd call it media studies or communication studies or new media studies and it's looked down upon to the same extent as cultural studies programmes are or courses on semiotics. I'd like to see media-philosophy (what you use to communicate your message) become an actual branch of philosophy like aesthetics/rhetoric (how you communicate your message). It's been stimulating, ciao!
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  Thanks for the suggestions, they're new to me. Again, I am not proficient here, just ambitious. The Revolt of the Masses by Ortega y Gasset is at the Internet Archive: https://archive.org/details/TheRevoltOfTheMassesJoseOrtegaYGasset https://archive.org/details/TheRevoltOfTheMassesJoseOrtegaYG... More to follow.
- dredmorbius 9y ago
  A few more thoughts: I.F. Stone, H.L. Mencken, and others (see particularly George Seldes) are far more practitioners than theorists, but they've had a significant mark on theory and make many great observations. Mencken's "Brayard vs. Lionheart" (I believe that's mentioned in my reading list) is especially apt, and is short to boot. It describes a large element of the information-theoretic component (though Mencken of course doesn't call it that) through his Gresham's Law reference and dynamic. Thanks for Gasset, Luhmann, Benjamin, and Chun, as I don't think I've previously run across them. Added to the already imposing book-mountain.