Manovich and New Media

I’m drawn to Manovich’s intro and first chapter as a presentation of his framework (key terms and principles) for theorizing new media and for its historical overview of the emergence of new media. I could use any of the five principles of new media (numerical representation, modularity, automation, variability, transcoding) as a jumping off point, or engage some of the historical account Manovich details as computation and media converge. What I’m saying is that’s rich ground here and I dig it.

For now, I’ll focus of Manovich’s principle of transcoding. Manovich calls this principle of new media “the most substantial consequence of the computerization of media” (45). What comes to mind immediately, in the context of our seminar, is the cyborg figure from Haraway. Not that I think Manovich is borrowing or building off of the imagery directly. Rather, I make the connection here to highlight similarities between the two. Manovich sees transcoding as producing computer and cultural layers that become “composited together” and produce “ a blend of human and computer meanings, of traditional ways in which human culture modeled the world and the computer’s own means of representing it (46).” This composite, hybrid, cyborg-ian mixture of meaning and representation does seem to be the default mode of production, distribution, and communication of culture, what Manovich frames as the “new media revolution” (19).

So, in some sense, I draw the connection to Haraway to wonder how Manovich’s framework here opens up new lines of inquiry or understanding? As Haraway uses the cyborg figure (along with irony) to reframe and begin reimagining feminist and other discourses, Manovich’s notion of transcoding, and his wider project of theorizing in this text, seems to be reframing and reimagining our discourse related to new media. What limits does Manovich’s framework reveal? Perhaps we might ask how other types of knowing are captured in his treatment of new media? While Manovich briefly discusses alternatives to “Language” in his title (aesthetics and poetics, notably), in this text, Manovich seems focused on meaning-making activities. Does his work here allow us to explore knowledge that is not connected to meaning-making, say in aesthetic encounters with new media? To draw on David’s post this week in his blogging reflection, we might explore our affective encounters with the process of coding, or with the products of our coding as well–how is our encounter with digital media shifting with our increased understanding of the behind the scenes work of coding?

Elsewhere, last week, Diana was drawn to Stiegler’s discussion of autonomous machines, and we might explore how Stiegler’s understanding of this concept overlays or contrasts with Manovich’s treatment of automation as one of his five principles.