White, Michele. . Body and the screen : theories of Internet spectatorship / Michele White. [0262232499 (alk. paper) ] Cambridge, Mass. : MIT Press, c2006.
Call#: Van Pelt Library TK5105.875.I57 W5275 2006

 

The Body and the Screen looks at theoretical models of Internet and computer spectatorship as a way of illustrating how these new technologies might not be as controllable as many think they are. Michele White views spectatorship as relatively similar between old and new media in certain ways. Just like in television and cinema, the images that appear before us on computer and phone screens hold a certain amount of cultural and social bias that cannot be removed. Consider the appearance of the “Ask Jeeves” butler – a Caucasian butler, and an image that has transferred exactly from old media to new. This idea is significant because it represents a departure from “traditional” ways of considering spectatorship in this age of digital screen interaction. I think her point-of-view provides a unique angle that I could perhaps use for my paper, especially since she outright disagrees with Anne Friedberg’s concept of an Internet/computer “user.”

The inclusion of several different types of theories and theorists in this book also appeals to me. I like that White chooses to back up her arguments with several different, at times competing, ideas from intellectuals of varying backgrounds. I’m not as interested in why she chooses whom she does; rather, her writing style here allows me to learn new bits of information quickly from authors I might not have known otherwise. In fact, overall, I learned a lot of little bits of information from other theorists in addition to studying her concept on new media spectatorship. The entire book is thus useful in this way.

Yet White’s examples and illustrative points may not be as helpful as her opinions and theories. She focuses a lot on the social implications of Internet content (how individuals consciously and subconsciously react to the white finger pointer or the black arrow pointer, for example), rather than examining the interaction between spectator and screen. Some discussion does exist on interfaces, especially in chapter 2’s discussion of “the gaze,” but ultimately return to reinforcing the social control that she believes pervades even this new media. My investigation really has nothing to do with examining gender, race, and sexuality issues in new media presentations, so much of this is not relevant for my paper.
 

Digital dialectic : new essays on new media / edited by Peter Lunenfeld. [0262122138 (hardcover : alk. paper) ] Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, c1999.
Call#: Van Pelt Library QA76.9.C66 D54 1999

 

The Digital Dialectic, edited by Peter Lunenfeld, features a number of essays focused on resolving apparent contradictions that arise in new media theories. The main approach taken by most of the authors here is to utilize conceptual ways of viewing new media in tandem with a practical outlook on the potentiality of this novel group of technologies. As Lunenfeld explains, these essays look to see where new media can go rather than simply where it is. His introduction does a good, albeit brief, job of outlining what he means by dialectic and how this could apply to new media; he also fleshes out a definition of “digital” and compares this to analog, thereby inviting comparisons that could provide useful for my investigation. However, Lunenfeld and the other authors fail to really explain the useful significance of examining this dialectic. Other than urging us to not take an “all or nothing” approach to this new media, no real definitive conclusions come from these reports. Perhaps this is the point, since new media studies have only existed for a relatively short period of time. Or perhaps I’ve been somewhat desensitized to this way of thinking since I’ve grown up existing in and accepting this type of new media compromise. Either way, a little more push towards a greater practical application for these theories would have helped.

Aside from the introduction and general tidbits taken from the book, I think Lev Manovich’s essay, “What is Digital Cinema?” provides the greatest information and opinions for my paper topic. This essay examines how tracing the filmic image change from “traditional” film to digital technology allows for a formation of the logic of the digital moving image. This fits in well with my paper because I want to compare older screen technologies (film and TV) with newer image methods of production; Manovich’s thesis thus provides me with at least one argument through which I can examine my own views on differences in old and new filmic screen images. Manovich also provides some background information on what he considers “digital media” to be, including its evolution from multimedia and thus its distance from traditional cinematic realism. But, his main example, that of the CD-ROM, is slightly outdated and not as useful to my direct purposes – therefore, I plan on using newer examples from more recent sources in my paper.