[rohrpost] Hypertext [part 3 of 5]

[Henning Ziegler]

[This is part 3 of a 5 part paper, comments or corrections are appreciated=
]


3  A Digital Materialist View of New Media

Henning Ziegler

Without that material anchorage, text is free to become infinite, to assum=
e magical, semi-divine powers.  It is such a theological concept of the 
infinite text that inhabits cyberspace, and which a materialist account of=
 reading must expose.
=97Sean Cubitt, Digital Aesthetics

I have been talking now for quite some length about new media objects, the=
 cultural interface, or cyberspace without describing the formal structure=
s 
of those concepts.  Lev Manovich=92s recent The Language of New Media is o=
ne of the few books with an emphasis on what the author calls =91digital 
materialism:=92 =93Rather than imposing some a priori theory from above, I=
 build a theory of new media from the ground up.  I scrutinize the princip=
les of 
computer hardware and software and the operations involved in creating cul=
tural objects on a computer to uncover a new cultural logic at work=94 
(Manovich 2001: 10).  Manovich=92s approach, then, is strikingly similar t=
o Jameson=92s in that he establishes a =91digital materialist=92 reading w=
hile at the 
same time he deconstructs the =91essence=92 behind new media objects.  Thi=
s move also makes him refraining from speculating about the future of new 
media in favor of making =91informed guesses=92 at the most, since cybersp=
eculation is typically found in texts that work under the assumption of a =
=91real 
meaning=92 of cyberspace (recall Stenger=92s =93space for collective resto=
ration and for peace=94).  So what sets new media objects formally apart f=
rom old 
media objects?
  
	First of all, the term =91object=92 needs some explanation.  =91Object=92=
 in Manovich=92s use reaches beyond new media in that it designates that 
various kinds of cultural expressions that share a similar formal logic: b=
ooks, CD-ROMs, hypertexts, computer programs, video games, 3D-
environments, and the like.  Describing something as a =91new media object=
=92 then emphasizes =93the general principles of new media that hold true 
across all media types, all forms of organization, and all scales=94 while=
 keeping in mind that a new media object is a subset of cultural objects i=
n 
general (14).  Apart from this, the term =91object=92 invokes the computer=
 lingo of =91object-oriented programming=92 (Java) and the Object Linking =
and 
Embedding (OLE) technology in Microsoft Office.  New media objects as oppo=
sed to old media share five principles: The first one is numerical 
representation, refering to the possible  =93translation of all existing m=
edia into numerical data accessible through computers=94 (20).  A film, a 
photograph, or a sound as digital code can be manipulated on a computer wi=
thout regard to their orginal format (for example with cut and past 
operations).  Modularity points to the fact that once composed into a new =
media object, smaller modules retain their original structure=97the distin=
ct 
elements or modules of a website, for example (images, movies, sounds, app=
lets, or texts), retain their independent edibility.  A third principle, 
automation, means that the modular structure of numerical code allows =93f=
or the automation of many operations involved in media creation, 
manipulation, and access=94 (32).  Generally then, new media objects are l=
iquid: their digital structure continues to be variable, even if they exis=
t as fully-
fleged artwork.  The most important principle of new media for Manovich, h=
owever, is transcoding, which Fredric Jameson describes for cultural 
criticism as =93the invention of a set of terms, the strategic choice of a=
 particular code or language, such that the same terminology can be used t=
o 
analyze and articulate two quite distinct types of objects=94 (Jameson 198=
1: 40).  In computer culture, transcoding is not an invention but rather t=
he 
everyday operation =93to translate something into another format=94 (Manov=
ich 2001: 47).  The concept then calls to mind that new media are merely =91=
on 
the surface,=92 underneath them is =93computer ontology, epistemology, and=
 pragmatics=94 (46).  For Manovich, though, invoking this concept of compu=
ter 
culture means that =93cultural categories and concepts are substituted (..=
.) by new ones that derive from the computer=92s ontology, epistemology an=
d 
pragmatics=94 (47).  The new media logic transforms everyday culture=97thi=
nk of the interface-like elements that enter into contemporary graphic des=
ign 
(SONY billboard advertisements) or into old media formats such as televisi=
on (the Windows-style redesign of the most prominent German TV news).

	A concept that perhaps best highlights the difference between old and new=
 media is the idea of distributed content, and the corresponding 
characteristics of openness or closure.  =93The epic world is an utterly f=
inished thing, not only as an authentic event from the distant past but al=
so on its 
own terms and by its own standards; it is impossible to change, to re-thin=
k, to re-evaluate anything in it,=94 says M.M. Bakthin about the novel (Ba=
khtin 
1981: 17).  As a finished object, a book structurally does not permit chan=
ges; annotations are always discernible as such from the main text, and 
errors can only be corrected in another edition.  Formally, then, books as=
 old media objects can be read as a strategy for unification and closure o=
f a 
content that is divergent, or antagonistic, whereas new media objects rema=
in variable or liquid, as Manovich=92s principle suggests.  Think of a web=
site: 
Its content is distributed over a database; the images are usually in one =
=91folder,=92 audio in others.  The page is assembled automatically by a 
programmed HTML file that =91calls up=92 the modules from their distribute=
d locations.  In a simple HTML page, only objects that are not the main te=
xtual 
content are located in different files or even on different computers in a=
 network, and if the pages work with dynamically created content, everythi=
ng 
except for the page layout lies somewhere else.  Note that all links to mo=
dules (and Web hyperlinks in general) are really equal, the content is 
=91flattened out,=92 so if you try to =91deconstruct=92 a website, each el=
ement retains its original structure=97it had been structurally deconstruc=
ted/modular from 
the beginning (The work of Derrida presupposed the original unity of the b=
ook as old media object).  

	New media objects then also hold different implications for authorship th=
an old media do.  Since many new media objects are organized 
around the logic of the database, making a new media objects becomes somet=
hing akin to the operations of the DJ in modern musical culture.  A 
database in computer language is =93a structured collection of data;=94 in=
 a more general sense, though, databases are =93collections of individual =
items, 
with every item possessing the same significance as any other=94 (Manovich=
 2001: 218).  The DJ/new media author selects elements from a database 
and composes them into a new media object.  Interestingly, this DJ authors=
hip that is based on the database as a =91symbolic form=92 transcodes 
computer epistemology into our cultural behavior of everyday life: as Mano=
vich has rightly pointed out, we browse through a cultural catalogue to 
chose modular clothes, music, friends, food, and on top of that we =91copy=
 and paste=92 Eastern religion into our lives=97no wonder we start seeing =
the 
world around us as a database.  Having arrived at this implication, then, =
it seems clear to me that a =91cultural composite=92 way of living readily=
 lends 
itself to a political reading.  So in the next chapter, I=92ll attempt to =
interpret some of the general structural aspects of new media objects that=
 I=92ve talked 
about so far in social or political terms.

[end of part 3]



Henning Ziegler, Berlin
http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~hziegler