Scannell describes all talk on radio and television as defined by its intention as public discourse that is meant to be heard, it has listenable properties intentionally built into it, and to be effective it must have a consideration for its absent audience. How is this relationship with an audience important to other forms of communication, such as visual art... for example when when an artist makes a work in their studio meant to be shown in a different context?
One essential point Ong makes about written language is that is allows a degree of objectivity not possible in pure orality. How does the development or dominance of written language effect the more visual aspects of a culture? Clearly it lessens the impact of audition by making it no longer necessary for communication, but does it also in this case heighten the importance of vision?
McLuhan's essay brings into question the idea of the “effectiveness” of a language, especially our own. What range of ideas it can portray? Is ours the least effective because of our modernized language system? Have we destroyed our language in our attempts to make it universal with the modern alphabet?
The idea of permanent synesthesia within our modern media was also very interesting: even headlines in newspapers become iconic, sculptural. Typography as an obsession within itself has become very current.
In Scannell's essay, I feel that his interpretation of radio being geared towards a more individualized audience may not hold true today. Even though radio is still somewhat marketed and executed in a more personal way, doesn't the "savvy" listener know better?
Finally, in Ong's essay, I loved the idea of these formulas, such as "Beowulf-poet's 'whale-road' is a formula (metaphorical) for the sea in a sense in which the term 'sea' is not." (p. 36) I understand that the word wouldn't be as effective without the functioning definition of the word itself.
Does TV transcend the barriers between visual and oral culture? Can a video of a broadcaster speaking words be broken up into stills of the broadcaster, which are “written” with the light of the TV? The McLuhan article talks about how parts of Chinese language are only written and cannot be spoken. Are recordings of assumed-impartial broadcasters the same as written text? Is that the closest we can come to a non-voiced word/idea in our literate society?
Would we consider TV differently if it was projected on a wall, instead of having the body of a TV? McLuhan says TV carries importance because it is the extension of touch – the most involved sense. Where does the touch come from? Is it because the TV set, itself, is an object, thus we can touch it? Or is it something more abstract?
Mcluhan describes representational art as visual and iconographic art as synesthetic, does he hint that the first is "pictographic" while the second is "phonetic?" If so, what does this say about iconographic art? When Mcluhan talks about the 50 different ways of saying the word "night," does he hint that iconographic art also can be read 50 different ways? He also affirms that phonetic writing is "crude and slow," does Mcluhan feel this same way about iconographic art?
Scannell affirms that audiences want an equal in a broadcaster, someone that talks to them on their level rather than adopting a didactic tone. Does the same hold true for art? What is the relationship between the artwork and the viewer in a museum? In an arts festival?
1. McLuhan writes, "in speech we tend to react to each situation that occurs, reacting in tone and gesture even to our own act of speaking...The literate man or society develops the tremendous power of acting in any matter with considerable detachment from feelings or emotional involvement that a nonliterate man or society would experience" (13). This has gotten me thinking about speech in literate societies. Ironically, it is mostly written or scripted. This allows the speaker to pass off the calm, reflective form of writing as impassioned speech. What are the implications of this, especially in the realm of politics? How much can we ever really know or trust a speaker/politician, whose words are carefully chosen and written for him/her?
2. Scannell writes, "The power of broadcasting, like that of any institution, lies in the way it can define the terms of social interaction in its own domain by pre-allocating social roles and statuses, and by controlling the content, style and duration of its events" (2). In many TV shows, the scripting and staging are obvious. But reality TV programs, by their very name, imply that scripting and staging aren't involved, even though they are. This seems particularly dangerous. A contrived social role or status in a reality TV program runs the risk of being perceived as genuine. What are the implications of this? Do reality TV programs tend to give credence to fabricated stereotypes or social models?
McLuhan focuses on how "phonetic writing separates and extends the visual power of words." In this case can the written word be considered more denotative than speech? Is speech purely connotative? Or is it the opposite? Does the speaker control the meaning of the word when spoken, whereas the written word is empty of meaning until read?
Scannell writes about how broadcasters, a public form of oral talk, infiltrate private space when listened to in one's home. "The pivotal face is that the broadcasters, which they control the discourse, do not control the communicative context." That was an issue with AM/FM radio. However, now with XM radio this has changed. A somewhat crude example is the case of Howard Stern and his radio show. When listened to on public FM radio, many of the listeners were offended by what he was saying. But now he is played on a specific XM station tailored to his gross humor. Listeners could be in control of listening to him. They pay to hear it.
Ong writes about the qualities of oral culture. I am very interested in the idea that as an oral culture we are forced to think more situational than abstract. As college students, "trained" by years of education, we analyze based on a previous lesson taught to us. Did the literate society give up all that was organic when it shifted away from being a orally based society?
Ong attempts to imagine what the thought-patterns of an oral (as opposed to a literate) human are like. However, isn't he inevitably biased in that he is himself literate? Can one accurately and objectively so enter another's experience? The concept of homeostasis is one of the characteristics Ong uses to describe orality. He suggests that the oral culture always keeps itself in equilibrium, that memories which no longer have relevance are removed from the ritualistic recitals. I find this particularly interesting because isn't there the implicit contrast with a literate society, which presumably does not have this homeostatic process? It seems as if Ong is claiming that literacy shapes culture as well as cognition, that it separates "primitive" from "civilized" societies. Isn't this indicative of a Western bias, reminiscent of Alfred Barr's catalogue cover? After all, the Western self is very much formed from the dichotomy of the "other", comparable to the simplified oral/literate dichotomy.
This ties into McLuhan's thoughts that "civilization is based on literacy", thus relegating all non-literate societies to primitive states. He even goes as far as to say that phonetics allows men to repress their feelings and emotions when engaged in action, and Western man has the unique advantage to act without involvement. Isn't this a more complex way of stating that Western man is superior to any other due to his rationality? And couldn't one argue that literacy's affects are complex and localized, and cannot be simplified into generalized cultural and cognitive change? McLuhan also proposes that in tribal cultures, the dominance of the auditory represses the visual. How then can one explain the plethora of physical/artistic artifacts that were produced by these "primitive societies"?
Scannell's discussion of the way in which media institutions construct identity reminded me of many articles we've previously read, most notably Hall's take on the construction of heritage and Readings' take on the media. If, as McLuhan states, the media/medium is the message and not the content, does any television show transfer a similarly constructed message, and likewise for radio? Can there be no connection in message between diverse media?
McLuhan presents a discourse on the strength of pictoral language such as the Chinese language. Our phonetic language is essentially weaker. Does this make the ideas presented in our language essentially weaker? Do they become stronger when translated into a pictoral language? What does this have to say about our culture and the way we communicate as a whole?
Scannell talks about how broadcasters aim to be a voice in a home, specifically in radio, and how they lack freedom in what they have to same. Turn on your TV and you will find a different story, with many broadcasters speaking what's on their mind. Is the visual element some kind of gatekeeper? Why did Howard Stern cause some much trouble on the radio, yet little was ever mentioned about his television show?
In reference to McLuhan, I am particularly interested in the notion of literary characters as part of the visual composition; in traditional Chinese sumi-e, characters were vital elements of the composition of the piece, and equally important to the significance of the work of art. It was about more than the careful consideration of text by the actual artist himself. As the work changed hands, the owners would place their individual seals on the work to signify ownership, which would become an integral part of the process of the work.
Scannell discusses the importance of talk existing in real time and how the audience relies on the impression that the program is actually done in a live format. Why is it so important to the audience that they feel involved in the process of production in order for them to have emphatic involvement in a television or radio show?
Ong starts out his essay with a really dynamic and mind-blowing notion of sound only existing as it goes out of existence. I have been particularly interested in oral tradition in my work, especially in that of cultures that still rely heavily on it in their language. The existing Gaelic speakers in Northern and Western Scotland still rely heavily on an oral culture. Not only is the culture heavily dependent on the recall of ideas, but the transitions of language that happen between individuals as the stories are told and retold provides a fascinating analysis into human interpretation and cognition.
McLuan discusses languages like Chinese that use symbols as visual representations instead of phonetic representation like english writing. This made me wonder immediately: how do new words come into being in a visual language? How do you write a word you have never seen before, but only heard?
Scannel discusses the unique situation of oral public discourse - the listener must choose to listen to it. If the speaker is in constant competition for the listener's attention, then how much individuality actually comes across?
I found the McLuhan article particularly relevant in light of this week's highly emailed NYT article about the lost art of reading outloud. Given that he asserts that "civilization is based on literacy" how do we interpret this new trend heading towards orality and auditory rather than the visual? How does this contrast with the Ong article?
Scannel writes that the live nature of broadcast make it a one-way communication medium, however this doesn't seem to hold true with new media broadcast. How has technology changed broadcast as we know it--should we consider "web streaming" as a form of broadcast or is something else?
In McLuhan's article, he mentions the Chinese language and how "these forms give pictorial expression to oral meanings." I wonder what his attitude would be towards the abolishment of traditional Chinese and the movement towards a newer and more simplified version of the written language? How do we describe this homogenization of their text? Is this process making the language more accessible, or less distinguishable, is this a type of Westernization? Ong's article breaks oral tradition down into so many discrete components. It made me about information that is essential and how oral tradition has a simplicity, urgency, and candidness that speaks to that. In this way, comparitively, writing and text can be seen as overwrought, dense, and exclusive. At the same time, does the artist's talk function as a type of oral tradition? Are we given too much information and does this alter our relationship with the visual?
1) McLuhan argues that writing, unlike speech, is "a kind of separate or specialist action in which there is little opportunity or call for reaction," and the writer is able to perform in a "matter with considerable detachment from the feelings or emotional involvement" of society. He makes this logical distinction between these two forms of communication: the "interactive" aspect. Writing, unlike speech, is more of a solitary activity. However, in Scannell's essay, he describes broadcasting or television as "public discourse" with "communicative interaction." Taking McLuhan's argument into perspective, what are the supportive reasons for Scannell's claim? Broadcasting, like writing, though produced with an audience in mind, nevertheless, lacks the two-sided communicative value necessary to make it interactive.
2) Ong argues that oral societies, societies that lack any knowledge or form of writing, are homeostatic, "by sloughing off memories which no longer have present relevance." However, a lack of writing does not dictate that the culture discards the past. For example, how would oral history come into play? Legends, myths, and other examples of oral tradition...are they not prime examples of memories being stored and preserved?
We have previously discussed the transition of our culture (particularly for the youngest generation) as moving from visual to auditory with things like cell phones and audible media. Ong discusses this in depth, pointing out the purity of form in written media. Independent of the audio/visual claim, I am interested in how technology has even further degraded the written word since the advent of computers: typing is now easier than handwriting (just look around our own classroom at how many students have laptops out), and the quality of writing diminishes as we embrace the ease of writing a two-line email over a formal letter. Are there parallels in oral communication, now that technology has given us access to a phone 24 hours a day? So now, going off of McLuhan's claim that "civilization is built on literacy" and "oral cultures act and react at the same time", how do we reconcile being in a generation that is mainly oral with mainly literary origins? What do we lose in this transition....but what do we gain from being able to "act and react" at the same time?
How is broadcasting and arts (specifically in performance/ conceptual art) different when both involves social interaction (intentionality) and the design (layout of lighting of the studio, who, when, where it is performed style)? Is there something common about the process of making art in the institutional art studios and in studios for broadcasting?
15 comments:
Scannell describes all talk on radio and television as defined by its intention as public discourse that is meant to be heard, it has listenable properties intentionally built into it, and to be effective it must have a consideration for its absent audience. How is this relationship with an audience important to other forms of communication, such as visual art... for example when when an artist makes a work in their studio meant to be shown in a different context?
One essential point Ong makes about written language is that is allows a degree of objectivity not possible in pure orality. How does the development or dominance of written language effect the more visual aspects of a culture? Clearly it lessens the impact of audition by making it no longer necessary for communication, but does it also in this case heighten the importance of vision?
McLuhan's essay brings into question the idea of the “effectiveness” of a language, especially our own. What range of ideas it can portray? Is ours the least effective because of our modernized language system? Have we destroyed our language in our attempts to make it universal with the modern alphabet?
The idea of permanent synesthesia within our modern media was also very interesting: even headlines in newspapers become iconic, sculptural. Typography as an obsession within itself has become very current.
In Scannell's essay, I feel that his interpretation of radio being geared towards a more individualized audience may not hold true today. Even though radio is still somewhat marketed and executed in a more personal way, doesn't the "savvy" listener know better?
Finally, in Ong's essay, I loved the idea of these formulas, such as "Beowulf-poet's 'whale-road' is a formula (metaphorical) for the sea in a sense in which the term 'sea' is not." (p. 36) I understand that the word wouldn't be as effective without the functioning definition of the word itself.
Does TV transcend the barriers between visual and oral culture? Can a video of a broadcaster speaking words be broken up into stills of the broadcaster, which are “written” with the light of the TV? The McLuhan article talks about how parts of Chinese language are only written and cannot be spoken. Are recordings of assumed-impartial broadcasters the same as written text? Is that the closest we can come to a non-voiced word/idea in our literate society?
Would we consider TV differently if it was projected on a wall, instead of having the body of a TV? McLuhan says TV carries importance because it is the extension of touch – the most involved sense. Where does the touch come from? Is it because the TV set, itself, is an object, thus we can touch it? Or is it something more abstract?
Mcluhan describes representational art as visual and iconographic art as synesthetic, does he hint that the first is "pictographic" while the second is "phonetic?" If so, what does this say about iconographic art? When Mcluhan talks about the 50 different ways of saying the word "night," does he hint that iconographic art also can be read 50 different ways? He also affirms that phonetic writing is "crude and slow," does Mcluhan feel this same way about iconographic art?
Scannell affirms that audiences want an equal in a broadcaster, someone that talks to them on their level rather than adopting a didactic tone. Does the same hold true for art? What is the relationship between the artwork and the viewer in a museum? In an arts festival?
1. McLuhan writes, "in speech we tend to react to each situation that occurs, reacting in tone and gesture even to our own act of speaking...The literate man or society develops the tremendous power of acting in any matter with considerable detachment from feelings or emotional involvement that a nonliterate man or society would experience" (13). This has gotten me thinking about speech in literate societies. Ironically, it is mostly written or scripted. This allows the speaker to pass off the calm, reflective form of writing as impassioned speech. What are the implications of this, especially in the realm of politics? How much can we ever really know or trust a speaker/politician, whose words are carefully chosen and written for him/her?
2. Scannell writes, "The power of broadcasting, like that of any institution, lies in the way it can define the terms of social interaction in its own domain by pre-allocating social roles and statuses, and by controlling the content, style and duration of its events" (2). In many TV shows, the scripting and staging are obvious. But reality TV programs, by their very name, imply that scripting and staging aren't involved, even though they are. This seems particularly dangerous. A contrived social role or status in a reality TV program runs the risk of being perceived as genuine. What are the implications of this? Do reality TV programs tend to give credence to fabricated stereotypes or social models?
McLuhan focuses on how "phonetic writing separates and extends the visual power of words." In this case can the written word be considered more denotative than speech? Is speech purely connotative? Or is it the opposite? Does the speaker control the meaning of the word when spoken, whereas the written word is empty of meaning until read?
Scannell writes about how broadcasters, a public form of oral talk, infiltrate private space when listened to in one's home. "The pivotal face is that the broadcasters, which they control the discourse, do not control the communicative context." That was an issue with AM/FM radio. However, now with XM radio this has changed. A somewhat crude example is the case of Howard Stern and his radio show. When listened to on public FM radio, many of the listeners were offended by what he was saying. But now he is played on a specific XM station tailored to his gross humor. Listeners could be in control of listening to him. They pay to hear it.
Ong writes about the qualities of oral culture. I am very interested in the idea that as an oral culture we are forced to think more situational than abstract. As college students, "trained" by years of education, we analyze based on a previous lesson taught to us. Did the literate society give up all that was organic when it shifted away from being a orally based society?
Ong attempts to imagine what the thought-patterns of an oral (as opposed to a literate) human are like. However, isn't he inevitably biased in that he is himself literate? Can one accurately and objectively so enter another's experience? The concept of homeostasis is one of the characteristics Ong uses to describe orality. He suggests that the oral culture always keeps itself in equilibrium, that memories which no longer have relevance are removed from the ritualistic recitals. I find this particularly interesting because isn't there the implicit contrast with a literate society, which presumably does not have this homeostatic process? It seems as if Ong is claiming that literacy shapes culture as well as cognition, that it separates "primitive" from "civilized" societies. Isn't this indicative of a Western bias, reminiscent of Alfred Barr's catalogue cover? After all, the Western self is very much formed from the dichotomy of the "other", comparable to the simplified oral/literate dichotomy.
This ties into McLuhan's thoughts that "civilization is based on literacy", thus relegating all non-literate societies to primitive states. He even goes as far as to say that phonetics allows men to repress their feelings and emotions when engaged in action, and Western man has the unique advantage to act without involvement. Isn't this a more complex way of stating that Western man is superior to any other due to his rationality? And couldn't one argue that literacy's affects are complex and localized, and cannot be simplified into generalized cultural and cognitive change? McLuhan also proposes that in tribal cultures, the dominance of the auditory represses the visual. How then can one explain the plethora of physical/artistic artifacts that were produced by these "primitive societies"?
Scannell's discussion of the way in which media institutions construct identity reminded me of many articles we've previously read, most notably Hall's take on the construction of heritage and Readings' take on the media.
If, as McLuhan states, the media/medium is the message and not the content, does any television show transfer a similarly constructed message, and likewise for radio? Can there be no connection in message between diverse media?
McLuhan presents a discourse on the strength of pictoral language such as the Chinese language. Our phonetic language is essentially weaker. Does this make the ideas presented in our language essentially weaker? Do they become stronger when translated into a pictoral language? What does this have to say about our culture and the way we communicate as a whole?
Scannell talks about how broadcasters aim to be a voice in a home, specifically in radio, and how they lack freedom in what they have to same. Turn on your TV and you will find a different story, with many broadcasters speaking what's on their mind. Is the visual element some kind of gatekeeper? Why did Howard Stern cause some much trouble on the radio, yet little was ever mentioned about his television show?
In reference to McLuhan, I am particularly interested in the notion of literary characters as part of the visual composition; in traditional Chinese sumi-e, characters were vital elements of the composition of the piece, and equally important to the significance of the work of art. It was about more than the careful consideration of text by the actual artist himself. As the work changed hands, the owners would place their individual seals on the work to signify ownership, which would become an integral part of the process of the work.
Scannell discusses the importance of talk existing in real time and how the audience relies on the impression that the program is actually done in a live format. Why is it so important to the audience that they feel involved in the process of production in order for them to have emphatic involvement in a television or radio show?
Ong starts out his essay with a really dynamic and mind-blowing notion of sound only existing as it goes out of existence. I have been particularly interested in oral tradition in my work, especially in that of cultures that still rely heavily on it in their language. The existing Gaelic speakers in Northern and Western Scotland still rely heavily on an oral culture. Not only is the culture heavily dependent on the recall of ideas, but the transitions of language that happen between individuals as the stories are told and retold provides a fascinating analysis into human interpretation and cognition.
McLuan discusses languages like Chinese that use symbols as visual representations instead of phonetic representation like english writing. This made me wonder immediately: how do new words come into being in a visual language? How do you write a word you have never seen before, but only heard?
Scannel discusses the unique situation of oral public discourse - the listener must choose to listen to it. If the speaker is in constant competition for the listener's attention, then how much individuality actually comes across?
I found the McLuhan article particularly relevant in light of this week's highly emailed NYT article about the lost art of reading outloud. Given that he asserts that "civilization is based on literacy" how do we interpret this new trend heading towards orality and auditory rather than the visual? How does this contrast with the Ong article?
Scannel writes that the live nature of broadcast make it a one-way communication medium, however this doesn't seem to hold true with new media broadcast. How has technology changed broadcast as we know it--should we consider "web streaming" as a form of broadcast or is something else?
In McLuhan's article, he mentions the Chinese language and how "these forms give pictorial expression to oral meanings." I wonder what his attitude would be towards the abolishment of traditional Chinese and the movement towards a newer and more simplified version of the written language? How do we describe this homogenization of their text? Is this process making the language more accessible, or less distinguishable, is this a type of Westernization?
Ong's article breaks oral tradition down into so many discrete components. It made me about information that is essential and how oral tradition has a simplicity, urgency, and candidness that speaks to that. In this way, comparitively, writing and text can be seen as overwrought, dense, and exclusive.
At the same time, does the artist's talk function as a type of oral tradition? Are we given too much information and does this alter our relationship with the visual?
1)
McLuhan argues that writing, unlike speech, is "a kind of separate or specialist action in which there is little opportunity or call for reaction," and the writer is able to perform in a "matter with considerable detachment from the feelings or emotional involvement" of society. He makes this logical distinction between these two forms of communication: the "interactive" aspect. Writing, unlike speech, is more of a solitary activity. However, in Scannell's essay, he describes broadcasting or television as "public discourse" with "communicative interaction." Taking McLuhan's argument into perspective, what are the supportive reasons for Scannell's claim? Broadcasting, like writing, though produced with an audience in mind, nevertheless, lacks the two-sided communicative value necessary to make it interactive.
2)
Ong argues that oral societies, societies that lack any knowledge or form of writing, are homeostatic, "by sloughing off memories which no longer have present relevance." However, a lack of writing does not dictate that the culture discards the past. For example, how would oral history come into play? Legends, myths, and other examples of oral tradition...are they not prime examples of memories being stored and preserved?
We have previously discussed the transition of our culture (particularly for the youngest generation) as moving from visual to auditory with things like cell phones and audible media. Ong discusses this in depth, pointing out the purity of form in written media. Independent of the audio/visual claim, I am interested in how technology has even further degraded the written word since the advent of computers: typing is now easier than handwriting (just look around our own classroom at how many students have laptops out), and the quality of writing diminishes as we embrace the ease of writing a two-line email over a formal letter. Are there parallels in oral communication, now that technology has given us access to a phone 24 hours a day?
So now, going off of McLuhan's claim that "civilization is built on literacy" and "oral cultures act and react at the same time", how do we reconcile being in a generation that is mainly oral with mainly literary origins? What do we lose in this transition....but what do we gain from being able to "act and react" at the same time?
How is broadcasting and arts (specifically in performance/ conceptual art) different when both involves social interaction (intentionality) and the design (layout of lighting of the studio, who, when, where it is performed style)? Is there something common about the process of making art in the institutional art studios and in studios for broadcasting?
Post a Comment