According to Harries (2002, p.IX) “The term new media has become an effective catchword both as a description of the digital delivery of media via the internet, DVD and digital television and as a reference to the ‘newness’ such technologies have brought to media more generally”. He then proceeds to discuss how these new technologies have changed how humans interact with new media and how these new technologies are more and more gradually becoming incorporated as one entity and are reliant upon each other for successful performance of function. This seems a fair point, as new media forms have indeed altered our way of life, except possibly the DVD as essential they are not much different from a video in the way they are used in everyday life, something is recorded onto them which is watched, just in a bit better quality. It is more evolution than revolution, it doesn’t make drastic changes. However digital television and the internet on the other hand have completely revolutionised human action within society. The impact of digital television is predominantly limited to our entertainment, but its effect upon it is enormous with it now possible to experience almost any form of cultural genre whenever it is desired. The internet is an even more influential entity as it not only affects our pastime but also business, industry, the economy, politics and human communication to name but a few.
A more critical analysis of new media culture is provided by Lister et al. (2003) when discussing its status within society. They discuss how the term ‘new media’ is used in the manner that suggests, as they state, “as if the new media already exists here and now as fully achieved material and social practices”. They go on to assert that they believe this is not the case as they view ‘new media’ as not yet having achieved a social identity which can be fully comprehended as the full extent of the technology is yet to be achieved and thus we cannot attain a complete understanding of the concept. This is a point well made as it cannot be yet possible to gain a full understanding in the midst of all the changes and advances that are occurring it seems on an almost daily basis. As has already been highlighted there is an interconnectivity of these new technologies and a reliance upon each other. But this can be extended as it is now possible to view the creation of one technology as consequently causing the formation of another. Recent phenomena such as the social networking site ‘Facebook’ provide an example of this claim as it was created in 2004 for the purpose of allowing students at Harvard University to share photos with each other, but has since grown to have more than 59 million registered users, averaging of 250,000 new registrations per day and an average 3% weekly growth both since January 2007 (Press Room, Facebook, 2008). However none of this would have occurred had it not been for the creation and success of digital photography which allowed for the possibility of internet photo sharing to arise. The meteoric growth of the whole social networking culture shows exactly why it is impossible to fully understand the concept of new media as in the matter of a couple of years it has fundamentally altered human communication, therefore how can we ascertain for certain that in two more years the combined use other new media technologies will not once again transform the entire structure of the concept.
When considering the question ‘What is new media?’ it aught really to be clarified what tangible entities are consisted within the spectrum. This point is put across by Manovich (2001) who begins by stating the common conception that new media is constricted within the bounds of being objects that are either distributed and/or exhibited by computers. However he points out that this view is limited and that the production of material must also be incorporated within the concept, providing examples such as ‘computer editing, 3D animation and text-image compositions’ to name a few. Although it is probably not openly appreciated in wider society, Manovich makes an important observation here as the advances made by new technologies in the domain of media production can be argued to be the most important aspect of the entire culture as without them there would be a severe lack of material to be distributed and experienced via these technologies.
The transformation of production techniques has also resulted in another change to the way in which individuals experience the media as it has allowed it to become more personal. What is meant by this is that new media technologies and their associated software are now far more accessible to the general public and it has become quite simple and cheap to produce your own artefact of media culture. Evidence of this is viewable within the music industry with the appearance of what is known as ‘bedroom DJ’s’, with an example being musician Daniel Bedingfield who reached no.1 in the charts with his first single ‘Gotta get thru this’ which was recorded in his bedroom using software on his PC called Reason. To be able to achieve that sort of success through the use of only common technologies like a home computer and a microphone is something that would not have been possible even as little as maybe 15 years ago.
Another example of this is the rise of YouTube which provides a platform upon which it is possible for anyone to broadcast or view any form of video item. The content of the site varies dramatically not only in terms of genre, as it possible to view film of almost any activity or situation imaginable, but also in terms of quality and variety of production techniques. Upon the site it is possible to experience almost every form of new media production method such as digital compositing, CGI, alpha blending and photomontage. The sheer volume of material available on YouTube shows that the success of new media technologies is largely down to the fact that they are easily available and more affordable to ordinary man, thus it can be argued there is no longer any form of media hegemony as it is possible for all to create their own form of media culture.
The concept of cultural hegemony in this new media era is an area of serious contention as there is a dichotomy of opinion upon its existence. It is viewed by some to be in an altered state as a result of advancements, others believe that it has been utterly shattered and others still that it has been enhanced, with the control of a select few being reinforced. Thomas (2002) discusses the notion of hegemony in relation to the correspondence between old and new media form, pointing out that what he considers old media, namely analogue media, have “a long-standing corporate tradition and are clearly regulated both in terms of issues of content and distribution”; whilst in his view new digital media technologies are too contemporary to have created their own form of regulatory system and are too disassociated from old media to comply with their methods of function. The result of there being no firm procedural code in relation to the reproduction and distribution of new media material is that there can be no official ownership of individual material and therefore it cannot be possible to use or control an item of digital media for the purpose of cultural hegemony.
The counter argument to this is that although it is possible now for an everyday individual to create their own forms of media culture through the use of new media technologies, it is still the small group of elite corporations that possess the control of media hegemony. The basis to this argument is that the old media conglomerates, such as TimeWarner, Disney and News Corp, still maintain a state of cultural hegemony as they are able to operate on a far larger scale than an ordinary person. What is meant by this is that due to their size and wealth they are capable of creating a much greater quantity of material, at a higher quality. They also have the ability to implement a larger variety of media platforms upon which to distribute their material and will therefore experience far larger amounts of public consumption. This is where the argument that media cultural hegemony has been destroyed by new technology is flawed as, although in theory the internet provides the opportunity for all to distribute and experience all varieties of cultural material, in comparison to the conglomerates their overall consumption is still very small as they are currently reliant upon one medium and not able to compete with the saturation that is maintained by the elite.
To come to some form of conclusion in this blog we can see that new media technology has most definitely altered society and our experiences within it. However these changes are not as drastic as some are making them out to be, and it must be realistically be viewed that the whole process is more a form of development and evolution from the technological advances from the last century rather than a complete overhaul of previous systems and understandings.
Bibliography
Thomas, D. (2002) ‘Innovation, Piracy and the Ethos of New Media’ in Harries, D. (2002) ‘The New Media Book’. BFI Publishing. London.
McLuhan, M. (1964) ‘Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man’. Routledge. London.
Jenkins, H. (2006) ‘Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide’. NYU Press.
Veltman, K. (2006) ‘Understanding New Media: Augmented Knowledge and Culture’. University of Calgary Press.
Manovich, L. (2001) ‘The Language of New Media’. MIT Press.
Lister, M. et al. (2003) ‘New Media: A Critical Introduction’. Routledge. London.
Lunenfeld, P. (1999) ‘The Digital Dialectic: New Essays on New Media’. MIT Press.
Press Room, Facebook (2008) available at http://www.facebook.com/press/info.php?statistics. Accessed: 2 January 2008.
