simon at littlepig.org.uk
Sun Jul 8 01:20:08 EST 2012
By the same logic a cinema screen is a piece of cloth, a TV screen a piece of blank glass. When we speak of cinema screens we include the full apparatus of the screen - the camera, the projector, etc. In respect of TV, the camera, the broadcast signal or other video source... all of which these days involve computers. I think I am justified to refer to a HUD as a screen and to assert that there is an important difference of ilk between a passive screen (to be viewed, such as cinema or TV) and an active screen (such as a tablet screen or eye-tracker system, that mediates action) and that this difference of kind is of greater significance than the difference between specific kinds of passive screen media.
I agree with you that different media do have different affects and what you write, in respect of MacLuhan, is reasonable.
On 7 Jul 2012, at 15:46, Ian Bogost wrote:
> On Jul 7, 2012, at 5:50 AM, Simon Biggs wrote:
>> I think the current debate, about types of screens, is off piste from the original theme, which was to do with agency. Yes, different types of screens will have different affects and effects. But the key point was that we have moved from the more or less passive screen (whether a blank surface and projector assembly or an all in one CRT, plasma or LCD panel) to active and pervasive screens. Screens that we interact with, that form our environment, that control other devices - screens that actively mediate agency and can, in some cases, act upon things without human involvement.
> But, as has been said already, those devices are not screens. They are, most often, computers. Many of which have screens of particular kinds. If we're ready to simply call all those things "screens" then I'm not sure why we wouldn't also call them automobiles or architecture or sandwiches.
> I agree with Sean Cubitt that medium specificity is relevant—more so than ever, perhaps. I worry about media and cultural studies broader tendency (I'm speaking very generally rather than in response to this thread) to melt all materials down into tropes, figures, and cultural flows, rather than to let a thousand flowers bloom in our analyses.
> Vis-a-vis screens, the way something can be displayed, what it means to display some kind of video output, has a strong relationship to and influence on the sorts of things we fashion for use. We shouldn't forget, for example, that the CRT television was McLuhan's primary example of multi-sensory "cool" media of the electric age, largely because the resulting picture was incomplete and required active "assembly" by the viewer.
> On Jul 7, 2012, at 6:58 AM, Sean Cubitt wrote:
>> Tiny footnote: to the best of my knowledge CRTs were the basis for vector screens (ie non-scanned, in oscilloscopes, radar and early video games)
> Right, this is correct. Both use electron beams to stimulate phosphor.
> empyre forum
> empyre at lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au
simon at littlepig.org.uk http://www.littlepig.org.uk/ @SimonBiggsUK skype: simonbiggsuk
s.biggs at ed.ac.uk Edinburgh College of Art, University of Edinburgh
http://www.eca.ac.uk/circle/ http://www.elmcip.net/ http://www.movingtargets.co.uk/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the empyre